This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Held: The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. 2. What are the ways of acquiring citizenship? Discuss. Held: There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person, who at the time of his birth is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof. As defined in the x x x Constitution, natural-born citizens “are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.” On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530. (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 3. To be naturalized, what must an applicant prove? When and what are the conditions before the decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory? Held: To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any government announced policies (Section 1, R.A. 530). (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 4. What QUALIFICATIONS must be possessed by an applicant for naturalization? Held: Section 2, Act 473 provides the following QUALIFICATIONS: (a) He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition; (b) He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years; (c) He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; (d) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation; (e) He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal languages; and (f) He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 5. What are the DISQUALIFICATIONS under Section 4, Act 473, in an application for naturalization? Held: Section 4, Act 473, provides the following DISQUALIFICATIONS:
(a) He must not be opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; (b) He must not be defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas; (c) He must not be a polygamist or believer in the practice of polygamy; (d) He must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; (e) He must not be suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases; (f) He must have, during the period of his residence in the Philippines (or not less than six months before filing his application), mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; (g) He must not be a citizen or subject of a nation with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; (h) He must not be a citizen or subject of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 6. Can a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority? Held: Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child, born of a Filipino mother and an alien father, followed the citizenship of the father unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. C.A. No. 625 which was enacted pursuant to Section 1(3), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid election of Philippine citizenship. However, the 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the age of majority.” The age of majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the time period on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to the effect that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time that person reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority.” Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. (Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, Oct. 1, 1999, En Banc [Kapunan]) 7. How may Philippine citizenship be renounced? Is the application for an alien certificate of registration, and the possession of foreign passport, tantamount to acts of renunciation of Philippine citizenship? Held: Petitioner also contends that even on the assumption that the private respondent is a Filipino citizen, she has nonetheless renounced her Philippine citizenship. To buttress this contention, petitioner cited private respondent’s application for an alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), on September 19, 1988, and the issuance to her of an Australian passport on March 3, 1988. Xxx In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be EXPRESS. Petitioner’s contention, that the application of private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue was put to rest in the case of Aznar v. COMELEC (185 SCRA 703 ) and in the more recent case of Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC (G.R. No. 135083, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999). In the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the mere fact that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
And, in Mercado v. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. Thus, the mere fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same must be express. As held by this Court in the aforecited case of Aznar, an application for an alien certificate of registration does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of one’s citizenship. The application of the herein private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her holding of an Australian passport, as in the case of Mercado v. Manzano, were mere acts of assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual citizenship – she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well. Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country has not been included as a ground for losing one’s Philippine citizenship. Since private respondent did not lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship, petitioner’s claim that respondent must go through the process of repatriation does not hold water. (Valles v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, Aug. 9, 2000, En Banc [Purisima]) 8. How may Filipino citizens who lost their citizenship REACQUIRE the same?
Answer: Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may x x x reacquire the same in the manner provided by law. Commonwealth Act No. 63 enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress. (Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996, En Banc [Panganiban]; Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 9. Distinguish naturalization from repatriation. Held: NATURALIZATION is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63 (An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or Reacquired ). Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473. REPATRIATION, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces (Section 4, C.A. No. 63); (2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II (Section 1, Republic Act No. 965 ); (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 2630 ); (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien (Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 8171 ); and (5) political and economic necessity (Ibid). As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, REPATRIATION simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. In Angat v. Republic (314 SCRA 438 ), we held: [P]arenthetically, under these statutes (referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630), the person desiring to reacquire Philippine citizenship would not even be required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the civil registry in the place of his residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines. Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 10. Who may validly avail of repatriation under R.A. No. 8171? Held: R.A. No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on October 23, 1995, is an act providing for the repatriation (a) of Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by 3
marriage to aliens and (b) of natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. (Gerardo Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, Sept. 14, 1999 [Vitug]) 11. Before what agency should application for repatriation under R.A 8171 be filed? Held: Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 725, dated June 5, 1975, amending C.A. No. 63, an application for repatriation could be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization, chaired by the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency as the other members. Although the agency was deactivated by virtue of President Corazon C. Aquino’s Memorandum of March 27, 1987, it was not, however, abrogated. The Committee was reactivated on June 8, 1995. Hence, the application should be filed with said Agency, not with the Regional Trial Court. (Gerardo Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, Sept. 14, 1999 [Vitug]) 12. May a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and, therefore, qualified to run for Congressman? Held: REPATRIATION results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. In respondent Cruz’s case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 2630, which provides: Section 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship. Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the Civil Registry of Mangatarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Petitioner’s contention that respondent Cruz is no longer a natural-born citizen since he had to perform an act to regain his citizenship is untenable. [T]he term “natural-born citizen” was first defined in Article III, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution as follows: Section 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Two requisites must concur for a person to be considered as such: (1) a person must be a Filipino citizen from birth and (2) he does not have to perform any act to obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of Filipino citizens which were not considered natural-born: (1) those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973 (the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution), of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those “naturalized citizens” were not considered natural-born obviously because they were not Filipinos at birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship. Those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution were likewise not considered natural-born because they also had to perform an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship. The present Constitution, however, now considers those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. After defining who are natural-born citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: “Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.” Consequently, only naturalized Filipinos are considered not natural-born citizens. It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in the said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefore is clear: as to such 4
persons, they would either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as member of the House of Representatives. (Antonio Bengson III v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, En Banc [Kapunan]) 13. Distinguish dual citizenship from dual allegiance. Held: DUAL CITIZENSHIP arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. DUAL ALLEGIANCE, on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. (Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999, En Banc [Mendoza]) 14. What is the main concern of Section 5, Article IV, 1987 Constitution, on citizenship? Consequently, are persons with mere dual citizenship disqualified to run for elective local positions under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code? Held: In including Section 5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Hence, the phrase “dual citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) (Local Government Code) must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance.” Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, x x x, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment. (Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999 [Mendoza]) 15. Cite instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess dual citizenship considering the citizenship clause (Article IV) of the Constitution. Held: 1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; 2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such children are citizens of that country; 3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. (Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999 [Mendoza]) 16. Does res judicata apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship? Held: Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the same; citing the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration (41 SCRA 292 ). He insists that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e., the principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca v. Republic (51 SCRA 248 ), an exception to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
No. 2000. The clear-and-present danger rule is inappropriate as a test for determining the constitutional validity of laws. and 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. or students violating “School Rules on Discipline. supra. prohibiting columnists. Content-neutral restrictions. COMELEC. En Banc [Purisima]) ACADEMIC FREEDOM 17. v. In addition. though not really binding. Inc.R.A. 227 SCRA 595-597. What are the essential freedoms subsumed in the term “academic freedom”? Held: In Ateneo de Manila University v. Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao. the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. Distinguish “CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS” on free speech from “CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS. Loyola School of Theology. commentators. Pano.” but likewise “who may be admitted to study. like Sec. (Valles v.R. 99327. Capulong.1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party. 6646.” If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it. No. 2nd Div. it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. or a laywoman seeking admission to a seminary (Garcia v. for it is precisely the “graduation” of such a student that is in question. 337 SCRA 543. 137 SCRA 245 ). Perpetual Help College of Rizal. A deferential standard of review will suffice to test their validity. Comelec (181 SCRA 529 ). Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud. The TEST for this difference in the level of justification for the restriction of speech is that content-based restrictions distort public debate. These regulations need only a substantial governmental interest to support them. what may be taught (and) how it shall be taught. No. En Banc [Vitug]) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 141.A.” and give example of each. a rule such as that involved in Sanidad v. 11(b) of R. they will be tested for possible overbreadth and vagueness. this Court cited with approval the formulation made by Justice Felix Frankfurter of the essential freedoms subsumed in the term “academic freedom” encompassing not only “the freedom to determine x x x on academic grounds who may teach. and are 6 .. which prohibits the sale or donation of print space and air time to political candidates during the campaign period. Capulong (G. For example. which are not concerned with the content of political ads but only with their incidents. 27 May 1993). G. Faculty Admission Committee. have improper motivation. on the other hand. Loyola School of Theology (68 SCRA 277 ). Hon. like Sec. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings. 8. 31. 68 SCRA 277 ). the SC pointed out that academic freedom of institutions of higher learning is a freedom granted to “institutions of higher learning” which is thus given a “wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students. [Mendoza]) 18. a university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. Jr. This freedom of a university does not terminate upon the “graduation” of a student.” We have thus sanctioned its invocation by a school in rejecting students who are academically delinquent (Tangonan v. to make the effort easier or simpler. 6646. (UP Board of Regents v. These restrictions are censorial and therefore they bear a heavy presumption of constitutional invalidity. and announcers from campaigning either for or against an issue in a plebiscite must have compelling reason to support it. Aug. 134625. Aug. 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof. 9. Held: Content-based restrictions are imposed because of the content of the speech and are. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine. subject to the clear-and-present danger test. To apply the clear-and-present danger test to such regulatory measures would be like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a regular hammer is all that is needed. or it will not pass muster under strict scrutiny. are not concerned with the content of the speech. 1993. 11(b) of R. May a university validly revoke a degree or honor it has conferred to a student after the graduation of the latter after finding that such degree or honor was obtained through fraud? Held: In Garcia v. therefore.) (Isabelo. No.” (Ateneo de Manila University v. 1999. Nov.
like regulation of time. 133486. challenged the constitutionality of aforesaid provision as it constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint. The COMELEC’s concern with the possible noncommunicative effect of exit polls – disorder and confusion in the voting centers – does not justify a total ban on them. Section 5. a newspaper of general circulation. No such reasons underlie content-neutral regulations. Section 5. place and manner of holding public assemblies under B. Should the challenge be sustained? Held: For reason hereunder given. the survey result is not meant to replace or be at par with the official Comelec count. since the former is only part of the latter. No. If at all. (Osmena v. The holding and the reporting of the results of exit polls cannot undermine those of the elections. expression. Jan. which are exercises that are separate and independent from the exit polls.A. 1998 [Mendoza]) 142. No. and for the elimination of election-fixing. 9006 (Fair Election Act) which provides: “Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) days before an election. the assailed Comelec Resolution is too broad. expression. With foregoing premises. publisher of the Manila Standard. Does the conduct of exit poll by ABS CBN present a clear and present danger of destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral process as it has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting interviewees. and the press by prohibiting the publication of election survey results affecting candidates within the prescribed periods of fifteen (15) days immediately preceding a national election and seven (7) days before a local election.P. the prohibition incidentally prevents the collection of exit poll data and their use for any purpose. COMELEC.4 lays a prior restraint on freedom of speech. which features newsworthy items of information including election surveys. Blg. a private non-stock. Undoubtedly. March 31. On the other hand. COMELEC. expression. since its application is without qualification as to whether the polling is disruptive or not. be justified. so that the results will as much as possible be representative or reflective of the general sentiment or view of the community or group polled. the Public Assembly Act of 1985.usually imposed because of fear of how people will react to a particular speech. the interviewees or participants are selected at RANDOM. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. based on the limited data gathered from polled individuals. instead of disrupting elections. and Kamahalan Publishing Corporation. to justify the promulgation of a Comelec resolution prohibiting the same? Held: Such arguments are purely speculative and clearly untenable. such a measure is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. researchers. Indeed. The absolute ban imposed by the Comelec cannot. not at stake are the credibility and the integrity of the elections. therefore.R. It does not leave open any alternative channel of communication to gather the type of information obtained through exit polling. To be sure.4 of R. fraud and other electoral ills. No.” The Social Weather Stations. social scientists and the electorate in general would be deprived of studies on the impact of current events and of election-day and other factors on voters’ choices. orderly. based on the voters’ answers to the survey questions will forever remain unknown and unexplored. candidates.4 of R. FIRST. It consists merely of the opinion of the polling group as to who the electorate in general has probably voted for. peaceful and credible elections. FINALLY. 28. Because of the preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech. non-profit social research institution conducting surveys in various fields. Inc. exit polls – properly conducted and publicized – can be vital tools for the holding of honest. it is concluded that the interest of the state in reducing disruption is outweighed by the drastic abridgment of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the media and the electorate. Neither has any evidence been presented proving that the presence of exit poll reporters near an election precinct tends to create disorder or confuse the voters. and the press. Quite the contrary.A. 2000. The Government ‘thus carries a heavy burden of showing 7 . 288 SCRA 447. The valuable information and ideas that could be derived from them. by the very nature of a survey. the outcome of one can only be indicative of the other. however. we hold that Section 5. and the press. G. There is no showing. 880. SECOND. that exit polls or the means to interview voters cause chaos in voting centers. there are other valid and reasonable ways and means to achieve the Comelec end of avoiding or minimizing disorder and confusion that may be brought about by exit surveys. “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity x x x. which further makes the exit poll highly unreliable. Unless the ban is restrained. En Banc [Panganiban]) 143. Moreover. 9006 constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. (SWS).
571-572. 5.4 actually suppresses a whole class of expression. 5.justification for the enforcement of such restraint. it should be invalidated if such governmental interest is “not unrelated to the suppression of free expression. Neither are there laws imposing an embargo on survey results. 5. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases x x x. At best this survey is inconclusive. In effect. 86 L. even if the purpose is unrelated to the suppression of free speech. It cannot be argued that this is because the United States is a mature democracy. in other countries. 5. it was held: [T]he protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. For as we have pointed out in sustaining the ban on media political advertisements. O’ Brien: [A] government regulation is sufficiently justified (1) if it is within the constitutional power of the government. [S]uch utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” By prohibiting the publication of election survey results because of the possibility that such publication might undermine the integrity of the election. expression and press) is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest (391 U.).4? The United States Supreme Court x x x held in United States v. 20 L. 715-716. (3) if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. IX-C. 2d 692. the libelous. Ed. thus: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech. 5. Comelec. 697.” Xxx Nor can the ban on election surveys be justified on the ground that there are other countries x x x which similarly impose restrictions on the publication of election surveys.’” There is thus a reversal of the normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation. the grant of power to the Comelec under Art. Under this test. Sec. In Near v.S. Osmena v. and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. its ideas. and (4) if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms (of speech. Ed. Comelec. It is noteworthy that in the United States no restriction on the publication of election survey results exists. FIRST. 1035 ). no presumption of invalidity attaches to a measure like Sec. which gives the Comelec supervisory power to regulate the enjoyment or utilization of franchise for the operation of media of communication. On similar grounds.” The inhibition of speech should be upheld only if the expression falls within one of the few unprotected categories dealt with in Chaplinsky v. Sec. 5. Nor is there justification for the prior restraint which Sec. 75 l. 1357. or its contents. Sec. if not viewpoint. armchair theorists.4 shows a bias for a particular subject matter.4. What TEST should then be employed to determine the constitutional validity of Section 5. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops. Sec. (2) if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest. its subject matter. 4 of the Constitution. 207 SCRA 712 .S. radio and TV commentators.S. These include the lewd and obscene.4.” It is noteworthy that the O’ Brien test has been applied by this Court in at least two cases (Adiong v.” Moreover. IX-C. by preferring personal opinion to statistical results. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression means that “the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message. Minnesota (283 U. Our inquiry should accordingly focus on these two considerations as applied to Sec. the law should nevertheless be invalidated if the restriction on freedom of expression is greater than is necessary to achieve the governmental purpose in question. the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against 8 . 680  [bracketed numbers added]). X x x. even if a law furthers an important or substantial governmental interest. 1031. and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. 568. the profane.4 lays on protected speech. and other opinion makers. This is so far the most influential test for distinguishing content-based from content-neutral regulations and is said to have “become canonical in the review of such laws. while allowing the expression of opinion concerning the same subject matter by newspaper columnists.4 fails to meet criterion (3) of the O’ Brien test because the causal connection of expression to the asserted governmental interest makes such interest “not unrelated to the suppression of free expression. 367. TIME. Sec. and the RIGHT TO REPLY” as well as UNIFORM and REASONABLE RATES OF CHARGES for the use of such media facilities for “public information campaigns and forums among candidates. the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. 1367 ). SPACE. Ed. New Hampshire (315 U. supra. 4 is limited to ensuring “EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Nor may it be argued that because of Art. even for a limited period.
Sec.). Subtit. No. Even if the governmental interest sought to be promoted is unrelated to the suppression of speech and the resulting restriction of free expression is only incidental. tear down. (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period. 11(b). Discuss the "DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT" as a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. Sullivan (376 US 254) holding that honest criticisms on the conduct of public officials and public figures are insulated from libel judgments? 9 . No. 14. when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity. (Social Weather Stations.” Praiseworthy as these aims of the regulation might be. which this Court found to be valid in National Press Club v. No right of reply can be invoked by others. 3). The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government x x x. x x x the prohibition imposed by Sec. COMELEC. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable. IX-C.R. It constitutes a total suppression of a category of speech and is not made less so because it is only for a period of fifteen (15) days immediately before a national election and seven (7) days immediately before a local election. Sec.obscene publications. and stop any unlawful. 4). there was actually no ban but only a substitution of media advertisements by the Comelec space. [Bellosillo]) 145. SECOND. then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken. Sec. 301 SCRA 1. it can confiscate bogus survey results calculated to mislead voters. 1999. No principle of equality is involved. the Comelec is given the power: To stop any illegal activity. the creation of bandwagon effect.” To summarize then. As for the purpose of the law to prevent bandwagon effects. and substantial. 6646. Ch 1. namely. May 5.4 nonetheless fails to meet criterion (4) of the O’ Brien test. Inc. Sec. Tit. it is not necessarily actionable. but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. Pursuant to this power of the Comelec. and resort to the form of election cheating called “dagdag-bawas. What is the “raison d’etre” for the New York Times v. Sec. “junking” of weak or “losing” candidates. and Osmena v.. This sufficiently distinguishes Sec. V. If the comment is an expression of opinion. This is surely a less restrictive means than the prohibition contained in Sec. as this Court pointed out in Osmena. Some voters want to be identified with the “winners. absolute. as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Bk. after due notice and hearing. RATHER THAN SPEECH because of apprehension that such speech creates the danger of such evils. because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved. it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. En Banc [Mendoza]) 144. they cannot be attained at the sacrifice of the fundamental right of expression. 6646. Held: Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. CA. Jan. 147571. we hold that Sec. 2001.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression. The prohibition may be for a limited time. Comelec (supra. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false. 5. but the curtailment of the right of expression is direct. G.4.4 aims at the prevention of last-minute pressure on voters. misleading or false election propaganda. 5. v. Thus.A. and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression. 11(b) is not only authorized by a specific constitutional provision (Art. but it also provided an alternative so that. (Borjal v. when such aim can be more narrowly pursued by PUNISHING UNLAWFUL ACTS. nevertheless. It is a free market to which each candidate brings his ideas. As already stated.4 from R. Candidates can have their own surveys conducted. 5. Sec. and every false imputation is deemed malicious.4 cannot be justified on the ground that it is only for a limited period and is only incidental. I.” Some are susceptible to the herd mentality. C. 5. Can these be legitimately prohibited by suppressing the publication of survey results which are a form of expression? It has been held that “[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities. or confiscate.A. 2nd Div. Comelec (supra. libelous. 5. Thus. based on established facts. and Comelec hour. it is doubtful whether the Government can deal with this natural-enough tendency of some voters. No. For the ban imposed by R.). 5. that the restriction be not greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.
or any other entertainer. 2nd Div. not the participant’s prior anonymity or notoriety. would not qualify as a public figure. v. effect and significance of the conduct.1998 in A.. a celebrity. Jan. It includes. however. [Bellosillo]) 146. broader than this. since would-be critics would be deterred from voicing out their criticisms even if such were believed to be true. "Re: Guidelines on the Conduct of Demonstrations. 14. for he could be. infant prodigy. as in the case of an actor. Article III of the 1987 Constitution that "no law shall be passed abridging" them. It has never been understood as the absolute right to speak whenever. in short. for the manner. 98-7-02-SC. The public’s primary interest is in the event. or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings. it attracted media mileage and drew public attention not only to the conference itself but to the personalities behind as well. because of doubt whether it could be proved or because of fear of the expense of having to prove it. Obviously. anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person. to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public. 29 April 1988. Pickets. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest. entitled. But even assuming ex-gratia argumenti that private respondent. his affairs and his character. mode of living. [T]he better policy is not liberty untamed but liberty regulated by law where every freedom is exercised in accordance with law and with due regard for the rights of others. Nos. Capulong (G. 2nd Div. peaceful assembly and petitioning government for redress of grievances citing Sec. 1999. (Borjal v. in other words. a professional baseball player. as long as he was involved in a public issue.e. It is true that the safeguarding of the people's freedom of expression to the end that individuals may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. free expression. Rallies and Other Similar Gatherings in the Vicinity of the Supreme Court and All Other Courts.M. The list is. At any rate. has become a ‘public personage’. For this reason. CA. we have also defined “public figure” in Ayers Production Pty.” and therefore subject to public comment? Held: [W]e deem private respondent a public figure within the purview of the New York Times ruling.Held: The guarantees of freedom of speech and press prohibit a public official or public figure from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. war heroes and even ordinary soldiers.R. despite the position he occupied in the FNCLT. As its Executive Director and spokesman. famous inventors and explorers. It includes public officers. i. The raison d’etre for the New York Times doctrine was that to require critics of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel judgments would lead to self-censorship. the public focus is on the conduct of the participant and the content. and time of public discussion can be constitutionally controlled. and no less a personage than the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. (Borjal v. 82380 and 82398. [Bellosillo]) 147. Conventional wisdom tells us that the realities of life in a complex society preclude an absolutist interpretation of freedom of expression where it does not involve pure 10 . 301 SCRA 1. 160 SCRA 861) as – X x x a person who. They submit that the Supreme Court gravely abused its discretion and/or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in promulgating those guidelines. Who is a “public figure. fame. and wherever one pleases. 301 SCRA 1. Jan. It was promoted as a joint project of the government and the private sector." Petitioners thus initiated the instant proceedings. with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. 1999. He is. by his accomplishments.. The FNCLT (First National Conference on Land Transportation) was an undertaking infused with public interest. or were in fact true. private respondent consequently assumed the status of a public figure. and organized by top government officials and prominent businessmen. it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. Held: We shall first dwell on the critical argument made by petitioners that the rules constitute an abridgment of the people's aggregate rights of free speech. But freedom of speech and expression despite its indispensability has its limitations. 14. Ltd. 4. The Office of the Mayor of Las Pinas refused to issue permit to petitioners to hold rally a rally in front of the Justice Hall of Las Pinas on the ground that it was prohibited under Supreme Court En Banc Resolution dated July 7. it does not necessarily follow that he could not validly be the subject of a public comment even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure. No. however. a pugilist. place. CA.
For the protection and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice. But even in such public fora. and should be uninfluenced by bias. We reject these low watts arguments. place. In the case of In Re: Emil P. 29. Thus. Contrary therefore to petitioners’ impression. in other words. Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Transparency in Government [ULAT].P. within the context. They wittingly or unwittingly. Public places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities. 134621.Ricardo C. of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community. Such a mode is in keeping with the respect due to the courts as vessels of justice and is necessary if judges are to dispose their business in a fair fashion. there will be grievances against our justice system for there can be no perfect system of justice but these grievances must be ventilated through appropriate petitions. they accuse this Court of x x x violating the principle of separation of powers. entitled. Jurado. without more. sidewalks. non-partisan proceedings before a cold and neutral judge. Jurado. Blg. or where upon their face they are so vague. among other places. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. To be sure. on the contrary.M. Prescinding from this premise.R. 880 did not establish streets and sidewalks. 323-324 ) It is sadly observed that judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice have been threatened not only by contemptuous acts inside.P. Even in the United States. such regulations are void. a prohibition against picketing and demonstrating in or near courthouses has been ruled as valid and constitutional notwithstanding its limiting effect on the exercise by the public of their liberties. 880. place. 98-7-02-SC . Where said regulations do not aim particularly at the evils within the allowable areas of state control but. The facts of a case should be determined upon evidence produced in court. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. Pickets. this Court has accorded freedom of expression a preferred position in light of its more comparative importance. or inexact as to permit punishment of the fair use of the right of free speech. x x x" (In Re: Emil P. it requires a written permit for the holding of public assemblies in public places subject.M. otherwise known as "the Public Assembly Act. 1998) 148. are considered. A close look at the law will reveal that it in fact prescribes reasonable time." by converting the sidewalks and streets within a radius of two hundred (200) meters from every courthouse from a public forum place into a "no rally" zone. Rallies and Other Similar Gatherings in the Vicinity of the Supreme Court and All Other Courts?" Held: Petitioners also claim that this Court committed an act of judicial legislation in promulgating the assailed resolution. In other words. such as streets. In balancing these values. it is not any law that can imbue such places with the public nature inherent in them. No. B. G. place and manner regulations that are specifically tailored to serve an important governmental interest may justify the application of the balancing of interests test in derogation of the people's right of free speech and expression. as public fora. (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.speech but speech plus physical actions like picketing. and parks. Did the Supreme Court commit an act of judicial legislation in promulgating En Banc Resolution A. and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication. the courthouses. the Court pronounced in no uncertain terms that: "x x x freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. indefinite. spoil the ideal of sober. prejudice or sympathies. they must all be weighed with the promotion of the general welfare of the people as the ultimate objective. X x x The administration of justice must not only be fair but must also APPEAR to be fair and it is the duty of this Court to eliminate everything that will diminish if not destroy this judicial desideratum. There are other significant societal values that must be accommodated and when they clash. even. and manner regulations.) Blg. it is settled jurisprudence that the government may restrict speech plus activities and enforce reasonable time. sweep within their ambit other activities as to operate as an overhanging threat to free discussion. but also by irascible demonstrations outside. motions or other pleadings. to be public fora. our rulings now musty in years hold that only the narrowest time. and manner regulations as long as the restrictions are (1) content-neutral. (In Re: Petition to Annul En Banc Resolution A. "Re: Guidelines on the Conduct of Demonstrations. It is the traditional conviction of every civilized society that courts must be insulated from every extraneous influence in their decisions. They charge that this Court amended provisions of Batas Pambansa (B. Hence. the Court reiterates that judicial independence and the fair and orderly administration of justice constitute paramount governmental interests that can justify the regulation of the public's right of free speech and peaceful assembly in the vicinity of courthouses. to 11 . Thus. 98-7-02-SC. Sept. 243 SCRA 299.
P. since within the courtroom a reporter's constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member of the public. telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the effective presentation of his defense. record. G. play to the camera. The existence of B. B. There is thus no discrepancy between the two sets of regulatory measures. Also. Judges are human beings also and are subject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. to limit the volume of loud speakers or sound system and to prescribe other appropriate restrictions on the conduct of the public assembly. to impose a rerouting of the parade or street march. particularly television and its role in society. (1) Witnesses might be frightened. identified four (4) areas of potential prejudice which might arise from the impact of the cameras on the jury. and of the impact of new technologies on law. On the other hand. 880 imposes general restrictions to the time.S. B. Should live media coverage of court proceedings be allowed? Held: The propriety of granting or denying permission to the media to broadcast. We so hold following the rule in legal hermeneutics that an apparent conflict between a court rule and a statutory provision should be harmonized and both should be given effect if possible. 880. Justice Clark. 532). (In Re: Petition to Annul En Banc Resolution A. In fine. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. it also raises issues on the nature of the media. Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the broadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to the courtroom. To so treat it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated. as the news reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing press into the courtroom. Blg. To insulate the judiciary from mob pressure. the Court through Mr. does not preclude this Court from promulgating rules regulating conduct of demonstrations in the vicinity of courts to assure our people of an impartial and orderly administration of justice as mandated by the Constitution. or photograph court proceedings involves weighing the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press. Collaterally. (3) For the defendant. this Court merely moved away the situs of mass actions within a 200-meter radius from every courthouse. Massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trial itself can so alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements of impartiality imposed by due process of law are denied the defendant 12 .Ricardo C.M. the trial judge and the defendant. (2) telecasting not only increases the trial judge's responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant. Valmonte and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Transparency in Government [ULAT].P. While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom. Philippine courts have not had the opportunity to rule on the question squarely. the right of the public to information and the right to public trial. 98-7-02-SC . still the current rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibits the presence of television cameras in criminal trials. place and manner of conducting concerted actions. Simply put. however." Representatives of the press have no special standing to apply for a writ of mandate to compel a court to permit them to attend a trial.R. the resolution of this Court regulating demonstrations adds specific restrictions as they involve judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice. Blg. the United States Supreme Court held that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of due process rights of a criminal defendant. Blg. or become nervous. Voting 5-4. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might affect their testimony. and isolate it from public hysteria. In Estes v. A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment.P. since a television or news reporter has the same privilege. it may as well affect his own performance. 134621. 29. on the one hand. The records of the Constitutional Commission are bereft of discussion regarding the subject of cameras in the courtroom. witnesses. No. and on the other hand. The decision in part pertinently stated: "Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on witnesses. Similarly. Texas (381 U. friendly or otherwise. 1998) 149.the right of the mayor to modify the place and time of the public assembly. Sept. 880 and the assailed resolution complement each other. the due process rights of the defendant and the inherent and constitutional power of the courts to control their proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartial administration of justice. "The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.
it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it. or pressure that media can bring to bear on them directly and through the shaping of public opinion. the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. When these rights race against one another. it does so in so many ways and in varying degrees. and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting. and the fundamental rights of the accused. who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings. able to thrive in hardy climate. it is a fact. the judicial officers. Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public’s attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only by evidence and argument given in open court. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment. in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence. Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice. it can likewise be said. with every reason to presume firmness of mind and resolute endurance. whether open or subtle. 22. degrading and prejudicial means. live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. more than anyone else. It also approves of media’s exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public 13 . Should the Court allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. 1991) 150. nonetheless. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper. With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. indeed. Witnesses and judges may very well be men and women of fortitude. The effect of television may escape the ordinary means of proof. Aquino's Libel Case. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom. It might be farcical to build around them an impregnable armor against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion. on the one hand. not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. dated Oct. a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings. a verdict that would come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure.” Even while it may be difficult to quantify the influence. sit in the available seats. and decreed by a judge with an unprejudiced mind. In the constitutional sense. The conscious or unconscious effect that such coverage may have on the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated but. (Supreme Court En Banc Resolution Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. unbridled by running emotions or passions. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process.and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not be forced to run a gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves the courtroom. that. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. on the other hand. but it must also be conceded that “television can work profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on. but it is not far-fetched for it to gradually erode our basal conception of a trial such as we know it now. To say that actual prejudice should first be present would leave to near nirvana the subtle threats to justice that a disturbance of the mind so indispensable to the calm and deliberate dispensation of justice can create. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order “to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history” as requested by the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas? Held: The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded.
(Re: Request Radio-TV coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against the former President Joseph E. during a flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one’s job or of being expelled from school. and recite the patriotic pledge. Justice Clark thusly pronounced. Estrada.” Absent such a threat to public safety. 135 SCRA 514. such that the verdict of the court will be acceptable only if popular. for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator (Chief Justice Enrique M. A. 2001. “The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect. pp. They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the rights of those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings. Barangan. that after the Gerona ruling had received legislative cachet by its incorporation in the Administrative Code of 1987. there is no warrant for their expulsion. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought. viz.. Cruz. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights. the present Court believes that the time has come to reexamine it. at stake in the criminal trial is not only the life and liberty of the accused but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system. No. the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. instead. The situation that the Court directly predicted in Gerona that: 14 . for the 30-year old decision of this court in Gerona upholding the flag salute law and approving the expulsion of students who refuse to obey it.” Xxx The Integrated Bar of the Philippines x x x expressed its own concern on the live television and radio coverage of the criminal trials of Mr. Xxx Unlike other government offices. Held: Our task here is extremely difficult. is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech (The flag salute. 517) is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave and imminent. June 29. Barangan.) and the free exercise of religious profession and worship. that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent. “while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in carrying out the important function of informing the public in a democratic society. Constitutional Law. nevertheless. 01-4-03-SC. public health or any other legitimate public interest. are tasked to only adjudicate controversies on the basis of what alone is submitted before them. within the courthouse. The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag. public morals. 135 SCRA 514. Nor is a competing market of thoughts the known test of truth in a courtroom. It is somewhat ironic however. Fernando’s separate opinion in German v. the expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare” (J. and live television and radio coverage of the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.M. freedom to believe and freedom to act on one’s belief. its exercise must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of ABSOLUTE fairness in the judicial process. and live television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the “hooting throng” to arrogate unto themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused. Estrada. Discuss why the Gerona ruling (justifying the expulsion from public schools of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to salute the flag and sing the national anthem during flag ceremony as prescribed by the Flag Salute Law) should be abandoned. Petitioners stress x x x that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony. courts do not express the popular will of the people in any sense which.and in acquainting the public with the judicial process in action. 1991 Ed. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior. they do not engage in “external acts” or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through the observance of the flag ceremony.. 176-177). singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge are all forms of utterances. A trial is not a free trade of ideas. is not lightly to be trifled with. 530-531). sing the national anthem. “The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom (according to the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in his dissenting opinion in German v. to paraphrase: Live television and radio coverage can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses during the hearings intended to assure a fair trial. En Banc [Vitug]) FREEDOM OF RELIGION 151. of a serious evil to public safety.
sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge. En Banc [GrinoAquino]) 152. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union. Paraphrasing the warning cited by this Court in Non v. In Victoriano v. and moral and spiritual values (Sec. 1987 Constitution. but when general laws conflict with scruples of conscience. under the 1987 Constitution. and all because a small portion of the school population imposed its will.” (Meyer v. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu. (Sherbert v. exemptions ought to be granted unless some ‘compelling state interests’ intervenes. 970. Philippine history and culture but also receive training for a vocation or profession and be taught the virtues of “patriotism. 1790). XIV. 398. x x x When they (diversity) are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here. we upheld the exemption of members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.” “Furthermore. Barnette. demanded and was granted an exemption. 1042. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” has not come to pass. both religious and patriotic. 185 SCRA 523. A pre-taped TV program of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was submitted to the MTRCB for review. 3. through the iron hand of the law. what the petitioners seek only is exemption from the flag ceremony. Ed. this religious group which admittedly comprises a “small portion of the school population” will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation “untaught and uninculcated in and unimbued with reverence for the flag. their right not to participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. 219 SCRA 256. Justice Jackson remarked in West Virginia v. we do not see how such conduct may possibly disturb the peace. Forcing a small religious group. even tragic situation. and the time will come when we would have citizens untaught and uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the flag and love of country.S. Nebraska. ed.S. 1993. Art. Berner. XIV). while the highest regard must be afforded their right to the free exercise of their religion. 59 SCRA 54. for it is the duty of the State to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education x x x and to make such education accessible to all” (Sec. 1. After all. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and teachers salute the flag. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. sciences. the democratic way of life and form of government. 2d 965. 269-273. Nevertheless. admiration for national heroes. “this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them” if they should commit breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities. let it be noted that coerced unity and loyalty even to the country. 374 U. however “bizarre” those beliefs may seem to others. love of country and admiration for national heroes. the price is not too great. Ct. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. 319 U. 1046) Moreover. March 1. the rights and duties of citizenship. not exclusion from the public schools where they may study the Constitution. 390. will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities. respect for human rights. or pose “a grave and present danger of a serious evil to public safety. public morals. 10 L.” We hold that a similar exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah’s Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs. and learn not only the arts.“[T]he flag ceremony will become a thing of the past or perhaps conducted with very few participants. and patriotism – a pathetic. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. 67 L. Art. We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah’s Witnesses from saluting the flag.) as part of the curricula. from the coverage of a closed shop agreement between their employer and a union because it would violate the teaching of their church not to join any labor group: “x x x It is certain that not every conscience can be accommodated by all the laws of the land. 83 S. x x x – assuming that such unity and loyalty can be attained through coercion – is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious liberty. public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent. appreciation for national heroes. 15 . 624 (1943): “x x x To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering statement of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.” (Ebralinag v. of other persons. The latter classified it as “rated X” because it was shown to be attacking another religion. 262 U. As Mr. Dames II. patriotism. to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. singing the national anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge. the expulsion of members of Jehovah’s Witnesses from the schools where they are enrolled will violate their right as Philippine citizens.S. to receive free education.
July 26. THIRD. however unclean they may be. the MTRCB cannot squelch the speech of the INC simply because it attacks another religion. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our society today. we shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of man.. serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health. The bedrock of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. since religious fund drives are usually conducted among those belonging to the same religion. To read the Decree. if allowed. Such restraint. the remedy against bad theology is better theology. not of charity. Like solicitation of subscription to religious magazines. Sec. as including within its reach solicitations for religious purposes would be to construe it in a manner that it violates the Free Exercise of Religion 16 . and a religious purpose is not necessarily a charitable or public welfare purpose. 1564 and. CA. No. Neutrality alone is its fixed and immovable stance. The second is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare. public morals. freedom to believe and freedom to act on one's belief. the marketplace of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech. On the other hand. A fund campaign for the construction or repair of a church is not like fund drives for needy families or victims of calamity or for the construction of a civic center and the like. it is part of the propagation of religious faith or evangelization. 3[a]).P. Religious dogma and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers.The INC protested by claiming that its religious freedom is per se beyond review by the MTRCB. Did the MTRCB act correctly when it rated “X” the Iglesia Ni Cristo's pre-taped TV program simply because it was found to be "attacking" another religion? Held: The MTRCB may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by the Iglesia Ni Cristo but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms. When the luxury of time permits. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the State is duty-bound to prevent. 386 ). may well justify requiring a permit before a church can make Sunday collections or enforce tithing. The purpose of the Decree is to protect the public against fraud in view of the proliferation of fund campaigns for charity and other civic projects. City of Manila (101 Phil. 259 SCRA 529. therefore. In a State where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion. Solicitation of contributions for the construction of a church is not solicitation for "charitable or public welfare purpose" but for a religious purpose. or public welfare.e. 259 SCRA 529. especially the fanatics.. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys. The first is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of thought." (Iglesia Ni Cristo v. "For sure. In fine. SECOND. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious programs brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. It is for the same reason that religious rallies are exempted from the requirement of prior permit for public assemblies and other uses of public parks and streets (B. (Iglesia Ni Cristo v. 880. CA. viz. that can fan the embers of truth. The Iglesia Ni Cristo's postulate that its religious freedom is per se beyond review by the MTRCB should be rejected. Blg. Under our constitutional scheme. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. save as those solicited for money or aid may not belong to the same religion as the solicitor. Vis-à-vis religious differences. i. the heat of colliding ideas. punishable if done without the necessary permit for solicitation from the DSWD? Held: FIRST. the need for public protection against fraudulent solicitations does not exist in as great a degree as does the need for protection with respect to solicitations for charity or civic projects as to justify state regulation. Should this contention be upheld? Held: The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect. therefore. the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the State from leaning towards any religion. 1996 [Puno]) 153. July 26. the State enjoys no banquet of options. Such solicitation calls upon the virtue of faith. 1996 [Puno]) 154. we precisely held that an ordinance requiring payment of a license fee before one may engage in business could not be applied to the appellant's sale of bibles because that would impose a condition on the exercise of a constitutional right. To require a government permit before solicitation for religious purpose may be allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion. it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion. But in American Bible Society v. Is solicitation for the construction of a church covered by P. the State should not stand still. Such solicitation does not engage the philanthropic as much as the religious fervor of the person who is solicited for contribution.D.
Austria v. the minister was not excommunicated or expelled from the membership of the congregation but was terminated from employment. 522-23.” Based on this definition.” So was the need to give the general public adequate notification of various laws that regulate and affect the actions and conduct of citizens. J. Jr..” access to which may be limited by law. G. liabilities and financial disclosures of all public officials and employees. it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance.. (Pastor Dionisio V. 1st Div.” except when “otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest. or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. religious doctrines. 1. 1991). He was dismissed because of alleged misappropriation of denominational funds. the state policy of full public disclosure extends only to “transactions involving public interest” and may also be “subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Belmonte. Similarly. in Legaspi v. In Aquino-Sarmiento v. as held in Tanada. Austria v. the suit may not be dismissed invoking the doctrine of separation of church and the state. the Court emphasized that the information sought must be “matters of public concern.” the Court. G. as it relates to or affects the public.e. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know. the records pertaining to such official acts and decisions are within the ambit of the constitutional right of access to public records. 17 . 6713. 1999. or form of worship of the church. 1999. Petitioner is a religious minister of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA). [Kapunan]) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN 157. Morato (203 SCRA 515.R. examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affairs to which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication. an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relate to matters of faith. Civil Service Commission. elucidated: “In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. V. (Concurring Opinion. 1994) 155. and the statements of assets. 124382. in Centeno v. Under Republic Act No. In the final analysis. Aug. The SDA filed a motion to dismiss invoking the doctrine of separation of Church and State. What is a purely ecclesiastical affair to which the State can not meddle? Held: An ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIR is “one that concerns doctrine. public officials and employees are mandated to “provide information on their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language. creed. the Court also held that official acts of public officers done in pursuit of their official functions are public in character.” As to the meanings of the terms “public interest” and “public concern. the law mandates free public access. Discuss the scope of the right to information on matters of public concern. gross and habitual neglect of duties and commission of an offense against the person of his employer’s duly authorized representative. hence. public consultations and hearing whenever appropriate x x x. VillalonPornillos.” In particular. (Pastor Dionisio V. and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed not worthy of membership. Consequently. Sept.. To be concrete. No. to the annual performance reports of offices and agencies of government and government-owned or controlled corporations. 16.R. it is a purely secular affair. administration of sacraments and other activities with attached religious significance. [Kapunan]) 156. ‘Public concern’ like ‘public interest’ is a term that eludes exact definition. Aug. NLRC. NLRC. willful breach of trust. November 13. at reasonable hours.. 124382.Clause of the Constitution x x x.V. serious misconduct. worship and governance of the congregation. No. He filed an illegal termination case against the SDA before the labor arbiter. worship or doctrines of the church. i.” Considered a public concern in the above-mentioned case was the “legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles. Held: In Valmonte v. Should the motion be granted? Held: Where what is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith. Mendoza. 1st Div. Likewise did the “public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers (members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa)” qualify the information sought in Valmonte as matters of public interest and concern. ordinations of religious ministers. either because these directly affect their lives. 16. or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership. [and] ensure openness of information. 236 SCRA 197.
the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions (People v. the prosecution and the detention of criminals. there are standards for allowable limitations such as the legitimacy of the purposes of the association. 1405. by former President Marcos. 4) Other confidential information. 1989) further prohibits public officials and employees from using or divulging “confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public. (Chavez v. 48 SCRA 382. information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest..A. whose authority emanates from the people. 1998 [Panganiban]) FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 160. the assets and properties referred to supposedly originated from the government itself. influences or relationships. December 27.In general. 9. Undeniably. To all intents and purposes. 3) Criminal matters. such as those relating to the apprehension. detention and prosecution. or their having taken undue advantage of their public office. This principle is aimed at affording the people an opportunity to determine whether those to whom they have entrusted the affairs of the government are honestly. thus. We believe the foregoing disquisition settles the question of whether petitioner has a right to respondents' disclosure of any agreement that may be arrived at concerning the Marcoses’ purported ill-gotten wealth. 1991). the essence of democracy lies in the free-flow of thought. The Ethical Standards Act (R. but thoughts and ideas must be well-informed so that the public would gain a better perspective of vital issues confronting them and. Does the right of civil servants to organize include their right to strike? Clarify. therefore. upon reconveyance they will be returned to the public treasury.” Clearly. (Chavez v. Dec. 299 SCRA 744. writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with their official functions must be accessible to the public. No. Ferrer-Calleja (203 SCRA 596. 1972. enacted on February 20. as amended]). consistent with the policy of transparency of governmental affairs. J. 9. 1997] and other related laws) and banking transactions (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act [R. We may also add that “ill-gotten wealth” refers to assets and properties purportedly acquired. 299 SCRA 744. where the Court. Ferrer. PCGG. subject only to the satisfaction of positive claims of certain persons as may be adjudged by competent courts. Is the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses a matter of public concern subject to this right? Held: With such pronouncements of our government. his immediate family. As such. the right of civil servants to organize themselves was positively recognized in Association of Court of Appeals Employees (ACAE) v. [Panganiban]) 158. (Chavez v. there is no doubt that the recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest. be able to criticize as well as participate in the affairs of the government in a responsible. Held: Specifically. Dec. What are some of the recognized RESTRICTIONS to the right of the people to information on matters of public concern? Held: 1) National security matters and intelligence information. reasonable and effective manner. 8293. No. per Castro. 2) Trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code [R. diplomatic and other national security matters. No. which courts may not inquire into prior to such arrest. relatives and close associates through or as a result of their improper or illegal use of government funds or properties. it is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas among a well-informed public that a government remains responsive to the changes desired by the people. or their use of powers.A. 299 SCRA 744. Certainly. PCGG. PCGG.” (Sec. 9. But. 1998 [Panganiban]) 159. as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. 1998.) Other acknowledged limitations to information access include diplomatic correspondence. while upholding the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act which outlawed the Communist 18 .A. This jurisdiction recognizes the common law holding that there is a governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military. faithfully and competently performing their functions as public servants. approved on June 6. Dec. 6713. 7[c]. ibid. closed door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either house of Congress. as in the exercise of the rights of free expression and of assembly. “resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Another declared overriding consideration for the expeditious recovery of illgotten wealth is that it may be used for national economic recovery. they belong to the people. November 15. directly or indirectly. Likewise.
It is also settled in jurisprudence that. 6. mass leaves. p. If there be any unresolved grievances. from their schools during regular school days.'' (Ibid. Nov. where properly given delegated power.' X x x. should not have been penalized. 4. the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment. They denied that they engaged in “strike” but claimed that they merely exercised a constitutionally guaranteed right – the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances . including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters are governed by law and employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes [thereto]. in their mass actions. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation. July 28.. government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by the workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. regulate the use of this right. like workers in the private sector." (Ibid. Jr. '[t]he terms and conditions of employment in the government. therefore. 281 SCRA 657.Party of the Philippines and other "subversive" organizations. But employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes. such as the removal of US bases and the repudiation of foreign debts. Alliance of Concerned Government Workers v. implicitly endorsed an earlier CSC circular which "enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions. Minister of Labor and Employment (124 SCRA 1. the Constitution itself qualifies its exercise with the proviso "in accordance with law. They also raised national issues. by law.) rationalized the proscription thus: "The general rule in the past and up to the present is that the 'terms and conditions of employment in the Government. in general. J. "Whatever interest in freedom of speech and freedom of association is infringed by the prohibition against knowing membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines. Should their contention be upheld? 19 . therefore. that "the need for prudence and circumspection [cannot be overemphasized] in [the law's] enforcement. In government employment. and regulations. 1989) and explained: "Government employees may. also per Gutierrez. to pressure the Government to accede to their demands. Petitioners public school teachers walked out of their classes and engaged in mass actions during certain dates in September 1990 protesting the alleged unlawful withholding of their salaries and other economic benefits. dated April 21. for instance. through their unions or associations. En Banc [Panganiban]) 161.") As regards the right to strike. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. clarified. not through collective bargaining agreements. 1997. all government officers and employees from staging strikes. August 3. 1987) which provides guidelines for the exercise of the right of government workers to organize. 1987. walkouts and other temporary work stoppages. 13) After delving into the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law. the Court affirmed the above rule in Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA) v. Aquino on June 1. Court of Appeals (175 SCRA 686. either petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment which are within the ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate government agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. is so indirect and so insubstantial as to be clearly and heavily outweighed by the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions in this country. it is the legislature and. though. walkouts and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service" (CSC Memorandum Circular No.and. 180 (Issued by former President Corazon C. however. workers in the public sector do not enjoy the right to strike. 14. including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof are governed by law. which took effect after the instant dispute arose.. p. or even deny certain sectors such right. demonstrations. And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars. 1987) by stating that the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall be observed." This is a clear manifestation that the state may." It cautioned. 1983. the dispute may be referred to the Public Sector LaborManagement Council for appropriate action. Executive Order No. operating as it does in the sensitive area of freedom of expression and belief. and penalized. 698) (Jacinto v.. They refused to return to work despite orders to do so and subsequently were found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority. Rule III of the Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Self-Organization. Court of Appeals. As now provided under Sec. the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. rules. s.
means any temporary stoppage of work done by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute . MPSTA v. in order to participate in the mass protest. retired Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma. Court of Appeals (G. per Narvasa. The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness. as the underlying facts are allegedly not identical.recess. no one . petitioners liken their activity to the pro-bases rally led by former President Corazon C.essentially. (Jacinto v. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time . we now evaluate the circumstances of the instant petition. X x x. 1997. It does not prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police power by enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health. the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services. comfort. Their act by their nature was enjoined by the Civil Service law. they tenaciously insist that their absences during certain dates in September 1990 were a valid exercise of their constitutional right to engage in peaceful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances. their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education. therefore. Social justice is identified with the broad scope of the police power of the state and requires the extensive use of such power.to fully and justly implement certain laws and measures intended to benefit them materially x x x. by public school teachers who consequently absented themselves from their classes. The executive order creating the POEA was enacted to further implement the social justice provisions of the 1973 Constitution. As it was. their participation therein did not constitute any offense. for such matters 20 . changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment. 124678. the CSC or even this Court . do not seek to establish that they have a right to strike. CA. since the substance of the situation.. weekends or holidays . 14. Rather. Carino (Ibid. 1991. it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. be made answerable. Petitioners do not dispute that the grievances for which they sought redress concerned the alleged failure of public authorities . therefore. work which it was the teachers' duty to perform. Is the constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations absolute? Held: 1. Rather. which have been greatly enhanced and expanded in the 1987 Constitution by placing them under a separate Article (Article XIII). 1997. this Court said that the fact that the conventional term "strike" was not used by the participants to describe their common course of action was insignificant. It cannot be denied that the mass action or assembly staged by the petitioners resulted in the non-holding of classes in several public schools during the corresponding period. now CJ. STRIKE. for which they were responsible. participated in. And probably to clothe their action with permissible character (In justifying their mass actions. per Regalado. bases and the repudiation of foreign debt. regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employers and employees. maintaining. morals. 281 SCRA 657. or absence from. after classes. rules and regulations. Laguio (Supra. or the association or representation of persons in negotiating. who are public schoolteachers and thus government employees. their "employers" . was deemed controlling. they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of. for which they must. undertaken for essentially economic reasons. the petitioners here x x x were not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.R. Nov.to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law. in which this Court declared that "these 'mass actions' were to all intents and purposes a strike. They claim that their gathering was not a strike. The Article on Social Justice was aptly described as the "heart of the new Charter" by the President of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. fixing. or general welfare of the community.). from their schools during regular school days. With these premises. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment." should not principally resolve the present case.could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. as defined by law. as well. however. the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority. J. even though contracts may thereby be affected. Aquino on September 10. Nor is there merit in the claim that the resolution and memorandum circular violate the contract clause of the Bill of Rights.). they also raised national issues such as the removal of the U. No.Held: Petitioners. the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government workers. En Banc [Panganiban]) THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE 162.not the DECS. Moreover.S. and not its appearance. J. safety. In Balingasan v. July 31. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property or some object of value and which confer rights that may be asserted in a court of justice.) and ACT v.). No administrative charges were allegedly instituted against any of the participants.
which was enacted under the police power of the State. Secretary of Finance. collective bargaining.]) 2. the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. they cannot be struck down on the ground that they violate the contract clause. And under the Civil Code. 1700. Jr. the freedom to contract is not absolute. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual.O. In truth. they are entitled to separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor Code. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties. v. Petitioners pray that the present action should be barred. (Bogo-Medellin Sugarcane Planters Association. the private respondents agreed to the quitclaim and release in consideration of their separation pay. 1995 [Davide. wages. such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions. Only slightly less abstract but nonetheless hypothetical is the contention of CREBA that the imposition of the VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by virtue of contracts entered prior to the effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision that "No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies. Inc. the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions. granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications. Aug. all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State. closed shop. Since they were dismissed allegedly for business losses. except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person. strikes and lockouts. Petitioners claim that the present suit is a "grave derogation of the fundamental principle that obligations arising from a valid contract have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith. as the general well-being of the community may require. [Panganiban]) 3. or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the State to regulate and control them. such a law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of 21 . 25. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. through the exercise of prophetic discernment. working conditions. v." The Court disagrees. 685-686. The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and good order of society. Therefore. Verily. 797 (Creating the POEA). To hold otherwise is to alter long-established constitutional doctrine and to subordinate the police power to the contract clause. In these cases. And since there was thus no extra consideration for the private respondents to give up their employment. Jurisprudence holds that the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of contract is subject to the police power of the state and to reasonable legislative regulations promoting health. hours of labor and similar subjects. 1994. Nevertheless. Inc. Such quitclaim and release agreements are regarded as ineffective to bar the workers from claiming the full measure of their legal rights. This is because by its very nature and purpose. fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the State. contracts of labor are explicitly subject to the police power of the State because they are not ordinary contracts but are impressed with public interest. Hence. POEA. or as the circumstances may change. safety and welfare. Article 1700 thereof expressly provides: Art. In the case at bar. April 21. 243 SCRA 666." It is enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot. or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face. such undertakings cannot be allowed to bar the action for illegal dismissal. even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts. because private respondents have voluntarily executed quitclaims and releases and received their separation pay. En Banc [Mendoza]) 4. Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy. 235 SCRA 630. The challenged resolution and memorandum circular being valid implementations of E. NLRC. the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. 124. X x x. (Tolentino v. but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order. 296 SCRA 108. the Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the State's power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration. Since timber licenses are not contracts. X x x. morals. the non-impairment clause x x x cannot be invoked. No. but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time. the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses.
134504. 1997) enunciated the following duties of the trial judge in such petition for bail: 1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation. 295 SCRA 366. the Court is in agreement with the Solicitor General that the incentive pay or benefit is in the nature of a bonus which is not a demandable or enforceable obligation." Imposed in Baylon v. "Said reasoning is tantamount to ceding to the prosecutor the duty of exercising judicial discretion to determine whether the guilt of the accused is strong. Flor Marie Sta. The summary thereof is considered an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense.R. (Joselito V. Anent petitioners' contention that the forcible refund of incentive benefits is an unconstitutional impairment of a contractual obligation.R. it is difficult to imagine x x x how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving. X x x. 2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion. Romana-Cruz. the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. The Court added: "The above-enumerated procedure should now leave no room for doubt as to the duties of the trial judge in cases of bail applications. So basic and fundamental is it to conduct a hearing in connection with the grant of bail in the proper cases that it would amount to judicial apostasy for any member of the judiciary to disclaim knowledge or awareness thereof. Rapatalo (269 SCRA 220. March 5.. its absence will invalidate the grant or the denial of the application for bail. distinction must be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts. Otherwise. 11. Narciso v. G. Factoran. the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. Romana-Cruz. (Oposa v. with respect to renewal. (Joselito V. [Panganiban]) 177. 134504. will it be proper for the judge to grant bail without conducting hearing if the prosecutor interposes no objection to such application? Why? Held: Jurisprudence is replete with decisions compelling judges to conduct the required hearings in bail applications." Additionally. suffice it to state that "[n]ot all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Judicial discretion is the domain of the judge before whom the petition for provisional liberty will be decided. 2000. in which the accused stands charged with a capital offense. 224 SCRA 792 ) 5. (Blaquera v. accepting. The mandated duty to exercise discretion has never been reposed upon the prosecutor.the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. promoting their health and enhancing their general welfare. save in cases of renewal. 3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution. The absence of objection from the prosecution is never a basis for the grant of bail in such cases. processing. Finally. March 17. no contract would have as yet existed in the other instances. Alcala. En Banc [Purisima]) THE RIGHT TO BAIL 176. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. No. on the basis of which should be formulated the judge's own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. March 17. Moreover. Flor Marie Sta. 1995) was this mandatory duty to conduct a hearing despite the prosecution's refusal to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. Sison (243 SCRA 284. 3rd Div. for the judge has no right to presume that the prosecutor knows what he is doing on account of familiarity with the case. In short. 446. 3rd Div. Jr. Sept. No. April 6. 2000. petition should be denied. the court's grant or refusal of bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. [Panganiban]) 22 . Besides. Narciso v. In bail application where the accused is charged with a capital offense. What are the duties of the judge in cases of bail applications where the accused is charged with capital offense? Held: Basco v. G. The acts involved in this case are governmental. 4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong. 1998. renewing or approving new timber license for.
in its discretion. 2nd Div. trial can proceed as long as he is notified of the date of the hearing and his failure to appear is unjustified. The purpose of bail is to secure one’s release and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. It is axiomatic that for one to be entitled to bail. Sec. it appears that the bondsman x x x filed a motion in the trial court x x x for the cancellation of petitioners’ bail bond for the latter’s failure to renew the same upon its expiration. and thus even during the period of appeal. 14(2) of the Constitution. his arraignment cannot be held. consent of the bondsman is necessary. The trial court correctly denied petitioners’ motion that they be allowed provisional liberty after their conviction. CA. trial in absencia is authorized. by being absent. After that. petitioners had remained at large. Sec. as amended by Supreme Court Administrative Circular 12-94. to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved. This seems to be the theory of the trial court in its x x x order conditioning the grant of bail to petitioner on his arraignment. The bail bond that the accused previously posted can only be used during the 15-day PERIOD TO APPEAL (Rule 122) and NOT during the entire PERIOD OF APPEAL. III. the trial court could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings. On the other hand. Petitioners’ Compliance and Motion x x x came short of an unconditional submission to respondent court’s lawful order and to its jurisdiction. Obtaining the consent of the bondsman was. bail should be granted before arraignment. (Lavides v. 1. (2) In the second place. introduced by SC Administrative Circular 12-94 is a departure from the old rules which then provided that bail shall be effective and remain in force at all stages of the case until its full determination. there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused. approval of petitioner’s bail bonds should be deferred until he could be arraigned. 1st Div. Moreover. This theory is mistaken. These scenarios certainly undermine the accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. foreclosed. 2000. [Mendoza]) THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED 23 . under their respective bail bonds. since under Art. under the present rule. the trial court apprehended that if petitioner were released on bail he could. Section 5. Apart from the fact that they were at large. (1) In the first place x x x in cases where it is authorized. prevent his early arraignment and thereby delay his trial until the complainants got tired and lost interest in their cases. for the accused to continue his provisional liberty on the same bail bond during the period to appeal. he should be in the custody of the law. Hence. unless sooner cancelled. Court of Appeals.” This amendment. Feb. or otherwise. 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. 2000. (Maguddatu v. irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it . This is consistent with Section 2(a) of Rule 114 which provides that the bail “shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all stages of the case. Feb. provides that: Xxx The Court. Should the accused who remained at large after their conviction be allowed provisional liberty? Can the bail bond that the accused previously posted be used during the entire period of appeal? Held: Despite an order of arrest from the trial court and two warnings from the Court of Appeals.178. even if petitioner does not appear. 1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed. Sec. and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. From the record. UNTIL THE PROMULGATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. to ensure his presence at the arraignment. 326 SCRA 362. 23. may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond during the PERIOD TO APPEAL subject to the consent of the bondsman. deprived of liberty. [Kapunan]) 179. such as arraignment. thus. Under Rule 114. one of the conditions of bail is that “the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules. 324 SCRA 321.” while under Rule 116. Is a condition in an application for bail that accused be first arraigned before he could be granted bail valid? Held: In requiring that petitioner be first arraigned before he could be granted bail.
e. it is important that the defendant knows why he is being punished. Bayya. A criminal proceeding is essentially an adversarial proceeding. Even if the defendant remains passive. and one of these is his PLEA. and the right to confront opposing witnesses. an accused cannot be held liable for more than what he is indicted for. he is not in a position to exercise many of the rights afforded a defendant in a criminal case. Moreover. What is the purpose of the rule barring trial or sentence of an insane person? What are the reasons underlying it? Held: The rule barring trial or sentence of an insane person is for the protection of the accused. The omission is not merely formal in nature since doctrinally. An incompetent defendant may not realize the moral reprehensibility of his conduct.g. an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed as it is the recital of the essentials of a crime which delineates the nature and cause of accusation against the accused. 2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause. Xxx In the case under scrutiny. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be. which rights are safeguards for the accuracy of the trial result. (People v. March 10. What are the objectives of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations against the accused? Held: Instructive in this regard is Section 6. (People v. the ACCURACY of the proceedings may not be assured. It has been held that it is inhuman to require an accused disabled by God to make a just defense for his life or liberty. for an incompetent defendant is likely to conduct himself in the courtroom in a manner which may destroy the DECORUM of the court. not charged in the Complaint or Information on which he is tried or therein necessarily included. the right to testify in his own behalf. Estrada. People (262 SCRA 518) that the objectives of this right are: 1) To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make the defense. June 19. (2) Second. but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense. 1987 Constitution). 718-719. his lack of comprehension fundamentally impairs the functioning of the trial process. the adjudication loses its character as a reasoned interaction between an individual and his community and becomes and invective against an insensible object. 327 SCRA 771.180. En Banc [Purisima]) THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 181. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court x x x. If the defendant is not a conscious and intelligent participant. (1) For one.. 333 SCRA 699. Corollary to this. if one should be had. To convict an accused of an offense higher than that charged in the Complaint or Information on which he is tried would constitute unauthorized denial of that right. a comprehension which is greatly dependent upon his understanding of what occurs at trial. The societal goal of institutionalized retribution may be frustrated when the force of the state is brought to bear against one who cannot comprehend its significance. the Court held in Pecho v. the right to effectively consult with counsel. and 3) To inform the court of the facts alleged. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. It is thus imperative that the Information filed with the trial court be complete – to the end that the accused may suitably prepare for his defense. The purpose of the above-quoted rule is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. a right guaranteed by no less than the fundamental law of the land (Article III. Section 14. the FAIRNESS of the proceedings may be questioned. To put a legally incompetent person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a violation of the constitutional rights to a fair trial. the information does not allege the minority of the victim x x x although the same was proven during the trial x x x. rather than of the public. 2000. He has a right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. (3) Third. and this has several reasons underlying it. What are the two principal legal and philosophical schools of thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity during the investigation and trial of high profile cases? 24 . (4) Fourth. 2000. Elaborating on the defendant’s right to be informed. the DIGNITY of the proceedings may be disrupted. En Banc [Puno]) THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL 182. as there are certain basic decisions in the course of a criminal proceeding which a defendant is expected to make for himself. as an incompetent defendant who cannot comprehend the proceedings may not appreciate what information is relevant to the proof of his innocence.
The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. Xxx 25 . there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. G. They have developed different strains of TESTS to resolve this issue. etc. (287 SCRA 581 at pp. 2001. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. et al. Alejandro. we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. Then and now. viz. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of life. Thus. not simply that they might be. Nos. especially in the criminal field x x x. Hon. At best. our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. In Martelino. We find no procedural impediment to its early invocation considering the substantial risk to their liberty whole undergoing a preliminary investigation. et al. Desierto. In People v. x x x.. it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. gavelto-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality.Held: There are two (2) principal legal and philosophical schools of thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity during the investigation and trial of high profile cases. clear and present danger. i..R. Jr. US courts assume a skeptical approach about the potential effect of pervasive publicity on the right of an accused to a fair trial. petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on their right to due process while undergoing preliminary investigation. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as they happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. In the case at bar. The British approach the problem with the presumption that publicity will prejudice a jury. (Estrada v. later reiterated in the case of Larranaga v. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. (249 SCRA 54 ). responsible reporting enhances an accused’s right to a fair trial for. we laid down the doctrine that: “We cannot sustain appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. 146710-15. It is true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity. Raul de Leon. Teehankee. a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. Should the Ombudsman be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against petitioner (former President) Estrada due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt? Held: Petitioner x x x contends that the respondent Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. The American approach is different. appellant can only conjure POSSIBILITY OF PREJUDICE on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that characterized the investigation and trial of the case. we rejected this standard of possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of ACTUAL PREJUDICE as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity. substantial probability of irreparable harm. To be sure. Court of Appeals. March 2.: “Again. Xxx This is not the first time the issue of trial by publicity has been raised in this Court to stop the trials or annul convictions in high profile criminal cases. strong likelihood. prosecutors. v.” We expounded further on this doctrine in the subsequent case of Webb v. For one. En Banc [Puno]) 183. the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police. (247 SCRA 652 ) and its companion cases. etc. He submits that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set to file the criminal cases in violation of his right to due process. For another. English courts readily stay and stop criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial suffers a threat.e. as well pointed out. et al. We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose their impartiality. 596-597 ). Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. by the barrage of publicity.
Commentators still bombard the public with views not too many of which are sober and sublime. have been recognized as indispensable to the enjoyment of enumerated rights. 80 S Ct 1038. we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. For sure. In addition. 4 L Ed 2d 989. Their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. not expressly guaranteed. a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows. et al. supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past. et al. Thus. and thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose. hostility. The right to attend criminal trial is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment: without the freedom to attend such trials. not simply that they might be. United States. their lawyers and their sympathizers – have participated in this media blitz. Virginia. and assembly.’ Be that as it may. Moreover. e. important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be eviscerated. in Martelino. the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. v. In the case at bar. A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally – and representatives of the media – have a right to be present. The length of time the investigation was conducted despite it summary nature and the generosity with which they accommodated the discovery motions of petitioners speak well of their fairness. and emotion. the respondents. Our daily diet of facts and fiction about the case continues unabated even today.. few cases can match the high volume and high velocity of publicity that attended the preliminary investigation of the case at bar. the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas means. the right of assembly is also relevant. standing alone. expressly guaranteed by the First Amendment. providing an outlet for community concern. media coverage of trials of sensational cases cannot be avoided and oftentimes. 14. which people have exercised for centuries. in the context of trials. prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time the First Amendment was adopted. 99 L Ed 11. From this unbroken. Indeed. 75 S Ct 11. we held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. various fundamental rights. United States. the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as give meaning to those explicit guarantees. share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government. even the principal actors in the case – the NBI. it must be concluded that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under this Nation’s system of justice. it was wisely held: ‘x x x (a) The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial in AngloAmerican justice demonstrates conclusively that at the time this Nation’s organic laws were adopted. press.The democratic settings.. 362 US 610. Cf. uncontradicted history. criminal trials cannot be completely closed to the press and public. (b) The freedoms of speech.. their 26-page Resolution carries no indubitable indicia of bias for it does not appear that they considered any extra-record evidence except evidence properly adduced by the parties. In the seminal case of Richmond Newspapers. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel. or decisions based on secret bias or partiality. Alejandro. Levine v. which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such process. thus giving assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to all concerned and discouraging perjury. The possibility of media abuses and their threat to a fair trial notwithstanding. by the barrage of publicity. To work effectively. 348 US 11. v. having been regarded not only as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. it is important that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of justice. its excessiveness has been aggravated by kinetic developments in the telecommunications industry. and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place. that the guarantees of speech and press. criminal trials both here and in England had long been presumptively open. we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. the misconduct of participants. (c) Even though the Constitution contains no provision which by its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal trials. Indeed. the significant community therapeutic value of public trials was recognized: when a shocking crime occurs.g. To be sure. Inc. In guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press. At no 26 . for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing.’ Offutt v.
Nos. 1995 of the Respondent Court's decision of June 30. July 24. or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information. Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to discharge his burden of proof. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. 146710-15. Under the first sentence. Incidentally. the special panel has yet to come out with its findings and the Court cannot second guess whether its recommendation will be unfavorable to the petitioner. even if there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in either case. or the offense charged in one case is not included in. such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the plea of double jeopardy of punishment or the same offense. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Article III of the Constitution ordains that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Section 1. (Cuison v. the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the SAME ACT. Will the promulgation of the criminal aspect later constitute double jeopardy? Held: Petitioner contends that "the promulgation by Judge Ramos on April 4. Desierto. where the offense charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes. (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. provided that he is charged with different offenses. CA. (People v. The second sentence applies. The first sentence of Clause 20. petitioner claims that the first jeopardy attached at that point. (Estrada v. 1998 [Panganiban]) 188." In other words. Quijada. 1996) 187. even if the offense charged are not the same. 289 SCRA 159. Legal jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid indictment.” Thus. the following must be proven: (1) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. He needs to show more than weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. or does not include. 1991 by reading its dispositive portion has effectively terminated the criminal cases against the petitioner x x x. Well to note. one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act. If the two charges are based on one and the same act. (b) before a competent court. (c) after arraignment. G. 259 SCRA 191.instance. or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. the cases against the petitioner are still undergoing preliminary investigation by a special panel of prosecutors in the office of the respondent Ombudsman. we hold that there is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. but not the criminal. 2001. (d) when a valid plea has been entered. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.” Applying the above ruling. the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged. the crime charged in the other case. En Banc [Puno]) THE RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY 186. as such elements are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the offenses involved. conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of statute. the Judge promulgated only the civil aspect of the case. April 15. Indeed. What must be proved to substantiate a claim of double jeopardy? jeopardy attach? When may legal Held: To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy. 27 .” The second sentence of said clause provides that “if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance. March 2. Held: Our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds of double jeopardy. The question of identity or lack of identity of offenses is addressed by examining the essential elements of each of the two offenses charged. Elsewhere stated.R. the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the same offense. So long as jeopardy has been attached under one of the informations charging said offense. the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the SAME OFFENSE whereas. No allegation whatsoever has been made by the petitioner that the minds of the members of this special panel have already been infected by bias because of the pervasive prejudicial publicity against him. Discuss the two kinds of double jeopardy. In its decision in a criminal case. (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense. did petitioners seek the disqualification of any member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial publicity. we note.
et. 1998 [Panganiban]) THE RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER 189.A. In excess of its jurisdiction. is the most essential. R.R. This last element. P. the first jeopardy has not yet attached. its mode of appeal and other procedural matters. What is a bill of attainder? Is P.A.D. 30. It merely ordered the promulgation of the judgment of conviction and the full execution of the penalty it had earlier imposed on petitioner. specifying the qualifying circumstances that would aggravate the offense. trial court promulgated only the civil aspect of the case. 1991 Decision. We emphasize that grave abuse of discretion rendered the aforementioned act of the trial court void.A. the promulgation was not merely incomplete. 1996 Order. and provide for their punishment. Hence. It does not mete out a penalty and. 8249 an ex post facto law? Held: Ex post facto law. April 15. No. No. CA. G. the total lack of court intervention in the finding of guilt and the determination of the actual penalty to be imposed. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. the retroactive application of R. but clearly a procedural statute. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial. treat of their nature. 1990. On the removal of the intermediate review of facts. 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of R. the trial judge rendered a substantially incomplete promulgation on April 4. Panga.A. 1866 a bill of attainder? Held: [T]he Court. does not come within the prohibition.A. 8249.A.. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against ex post facto laws. 1999 [Martinez]) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BILL OF RIGHTS 28 . which amended P. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations. R. 1866 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. (Misolas v. At any rate. it was also void. We must stress that Respondent Court's questioned Decision did not modify or amend its July 30. 659-660. Petitioner’s and intervenors’ contention that their right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired under R. What the decree does is to define the offense and provide for the penalty that may be imposed. (Cuison v. generally.A. and the lack of judicial trial. What is an ex post facto law? Is R. 8249 has preserved the accused’s right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review questions of law.. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. No. the law did not alter the rules of evidence or the mode of trial. the imposition of a punishment. defined a bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. 1995.D. prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. and he repeated his mistake in his April 12. Lacson v. It has been ruled that adjective statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure. but not the criminal.A.e.D. 289 SCRA 159. is incorrect. or those that define crimes. 20. Ferrer (G. 8249 is not a penal law. Here.The Court is not persuaded. Since the criminal cases have not yet been terminated. En Banc [Cortes]) 190. i. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. The Executive Secretary. The same contention has already been rejected by the court several times considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. 128096. penal or otherwise. a criminal prosecution includes a civil action for the recovery of indemnity. (Panfilo M. As a rule. in People v. 1972. Nowhere in the measure is there a finding of guilt and an imposition of a corresponding punishment.R. There is no encroachment on the power of the court to determine after due hearing whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offense of illegal possession of firearms has been committed and that the qualifying circumstances attached to it has been established also beyond reasonable doubt as the Constitution and judicial precedents require. R. has been declared by the Court as not a penal law. 181 SCRA 648. In fact and in truth. therefore. double jeopardy cannot prosper as a defense. Nos. the Supreme Court still has the power of review to determine if the presumption of innocence has been convincingly overcome. 7975. L-32613-14. Not being a penal law. Hence. [T]he promulgation of the CA Decision was not complete. Jan. R. December 27. 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Jan. al. a decision in such case disposes of both the criminal as well as the civil liabilities of an accused. and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals. Moreover. 48 SCRA 382).
There was no proof that Rosario’s counsel was remiss in his duties when the confession was signed. The trial court and the CA convicted Salonga of qualified theft. not a police officer. Del Rosario G. Estelito now contends that he was deprived of his right to due process because (1) he was not assisted by counsel during preliminary investigation. Yap applied for bail. There was no violation of Del Rosario’s constitutional rights. HELD: The statement was held to be admissible. People v. R. 141529 (June 6. CA G. CSC G. R. The trial court convicted him of robbery with homicide. and (2) he was removed from his position without cause which is contrary to Section 2(3). such act must have been committed in the performance of his function and duty as a Postmaster. He was not under custodial investigation during his interview. R. CA G.5 million and required Yap to notify the court and private complainant that he will change his residence. claiming that the statement of police officer Bugnot testifying that he admitted killing victim in self-defense is inadmissible for being violative of his right to counsel. 2001) FACTS: Del Rosario was charged with the crime of roberry with homicide. stating that his constitutional rights were violated when he signed it. 137473 (August 2. 2001) HELD: The right to abode and travel is not absolute. R. The amount set did not have any factual basis to support itself. 141801 (June 25. 2001) FACTS: Alvarez was convicted of the crime of homicide. It may be restricted. R. Estelito Remolona v. Alvarez contests the ruling of the court. No. The CA set the bail at P5. No. Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to 29 . 2001) FACTS: Yap was charged and convicted of estafa in the RTC of Pasig City. No. Moreover. Article XI B of the Constitution which provides that “no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause. R. Del Rosario questions the validity of the confession. 131036 (June 20. HELD: The right to counsel guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation.” It is his contention that although the offense of dishonesty is punishable under CS laws. He was interviewed by a bank officer. assisted by counsel. During custodial investigation. Salonga contends that his confession is inadmissible as evidence as it violated his constitutional right to counsel. The exclusionary rule under paragraph 2. No. No proof was shown that the accused was under custodial investigation. His right to counsel only existed when he is under custodial investigation. the accused here was not prevented from changing abode. The CSC found him guilty of possession of fake eligibility. HELD: The confession was valid and admissible. Alvarez v. No.Right to Bail Yap v. The rights of the accused do not apply to spontaneous statements given in an ordinary manner. No. signed a confession. Yap claimed that the bail is excessive and violative of his constitutional right against excessive bail. 141529 (June 6. HELD: The confession was admissible. Salonga G. He was dismissed from service upon his admission in a preliminary investigation of the CSC that he had paid a certain Atty. Since the charge of dishonesty involves falsification of the certificate of rating of his wife. Del Rosario. 131131 (June 21. 2001) FACTS: The Department of Internal Affairs of Metrobank conducted an investigation regarding anomalies made in the issuance of cashier checks. CA G. He was merely required to notify the court when he wishes to change abode. Right to Abode Yap v. On appeal to the CA. Salonga was interviewed and was appraised of his constitutional rights during the interview. It is only at this stage that the right to counsel attaches. falsification and dishonesty. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the bail was too excessive. especially if the accused tried to flee when the case against him was still pending. Salupadin to acquire a fake eligibility for his wife in the Civil Service Commission. Salonga admitted that he committed the anomalies and signed a confession. 2001) FACTS: Estelito Remolona is the Postmaster at Post Office Service in Quezon. People v. the same has no bearing on his office.
Section 4. a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself. No such written and counseled waiver of these rights was offered in evidence. Miguel Argel. He left to attend to some personal matters while the interrogation of Morial was still going on. he recanted his confession saying that the police tortured him into admitting the crime. On the basis of such findings. or of the press. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Argel cannot be convicted of murder. People G. Argel filed an administrative case against the judge for gross ignorance of the law. said attorney claimed that he was present when Morial signed the admission. Admissions by Remolona during such investigation may be used as evidence to justify his dismissal. No. However. the judge ordered the arrest of the accused Argel and rendered a new judgment finding Argel guilty of murder. of expression. Double Jeopardy * Sarabia. No. Held: The extrajudicial confession cannot be used against the accused. R. Leonardo Morial and Nonelito Abinon were convicted of Robbery with Homicide. HELD: The Supreme Court held that double jeopardy did not attach. Judge Pascua A. a lawyer called the judge’s attention to the fact that a witness was able to positively identify the accused and such feat was recorded in the judge’s notes. The MTC convicted him. as to do so would place Argel in double jeopardy. The former is not an attempt or a frustration to commit the latter. He forced them to do sexual acts and extorted them for money. People v. Since Argel was acquitted. … In the absence of any lawyer.admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in administrative investigation. there was an invalid waiver of the right to counsel since this right cannot be waived unless the same is made in writing and in the presence of counsel. The CA denied Sarabia’s appeal. Judge Pascua cannot issue another order amending the previous judgment of acquittal. On appeal. No. RTJ-94-1131 (August 20. as the incident in the present case was also the subject of a criminal case for robbery with violence against or intimidation of person wherein he was convicted. 7438 requires that “any person arrested. A complaint for grave coercion was filed against him by the victims. An accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start until the termination of such investigation. Argel v. However. poked his gun at two lovers. 129295 (August 15. During the custodial investigation.” Section 2A of RA No. Under existing laws. Sarabia now contends that double jeopardy has attached to his case. the counsel given to him by the police was not present during the whole interrogation. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. a police officer. There was no identity of offenses. no custodial investigation shall be conducted. and its ruling was affirmed by the RTC. M. However. R. Morial moved to quash the extrajudicial confession claiming that such confession was made without the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the constitution during a custodial investigation. and is not necessarily included in the latter. PNP v. recalled or withdrawn by another order after attaining finality. The former does not necessarily include. 2001) FACTS: Sarabia. Administrative inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees and with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. 2001) FACTS: In the case entitled “People v.” Additionally. It cannot be amended. The crime of grave coercion is not the same as the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of person. Leonardo Morial made an extrajudicial confession admitting to the crime.” Judge Pascua rendered a judgment of acquittal in Argel’s favor. Morial G. The question is whether Argel may be convicted of the crime of murder. or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. A judgment of acquittal becomes final upon promulgation. later on. Apparently. An effective and vigilant counsel “necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession. 2001) Facts: Edwin Morial. 142024 (July 20. What are considered protected speech: 30 .
social or religious ideas. tape or disc recorded. judicial prior restraint = injunction against publication c. Prohibition against PRIOR RESTRAINT 2. ii. With respect to public personalities (politicians. taken as a whole. Comment on their private lives. During a war. FAIR COMMENT (U.Protected speech includes every form of expression. written. 2. appeals to the prurient interest. There should be a clear and present danger that the words when used under such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has a right to prevent. however. The statements are not used to attack personalities but to give one’s opinion on decisions and actions. not of fact. Test for obscenity (Miller v. sexual conduct. Government has a substantial interest to protect. Government can prevent publication about the number/locations of its troops (Near v. flat license fees for the privilege of selling religious books When prohibition does not apply a. (Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. B. i. It includes motion pictures as well as what is known as symbolic speech such as the wearing of an armband as a symbol of protest. applying contemporary community standards would find that the work. and are not considered actionable. 238 US 697) b.e. Examples/forms of prior restraint a. if not germane to their public personae. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest. Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if: a. 1. 447 US 557) Unprotected Speech 1. opinions can be aired regarding their public actuations. Standards for allowable subsequent punishment TEST 1.S. California) i. specifically defined by law. does not. 2. OPINIONS. Prohibitions under Section 4 1. b. OBSCENITY A. v. in a patently offensive way. Peaceful picketing has also been included within the meaning of speech. Commercial speech. 3. These enjoy the same degree of protection. Clear and Present Danger Test CRITERION There should be a RATIONAL CONNECTION between the speech and the evil apprehended. What is important is that the opinion is the true and honest opinion of the person. It should not propose an illegal transaction. Obscene publications. even if the words used are neither mild nor temperate. 3. Commercial Speech 1. 31 . A communication which no more than proposes a commercial transaction. Balancing of Interests Test Freedom of Speech The doctrine on freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of “core” speech. Minnesota. LIBEL A. Ex. Prohibition against SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT Prohibition against prior restraint Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. actors. and c. Whether the average person. To enjoy protection: a. movie censorship b. Dangerous Tendency Test 2. whether oral. are not protected. license taxes based on gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of advertising in any newspaper d. It must not be false or misleading. speech which communicates political. and b. anyone with a connection to a newsworthy event). The regulation directly advances that interest. These are statements of OPINION. Public Service Commission of NY. The courts will then decide where the greater weight should be placed. Rule). The courts should BALANCE the PUBLIC INTEREST served by legislation on one hand and the FREEDOM OF SPEECH (or any other constitutional right) on the other. Whether the work depicts or describes.
Proper action should be filed under Art. The application should be filed ahead of time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there are valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant. iv. It is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not. must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity so that they may. Rules on assembly in public places: i. Whether the work. Freedom to travel within the country and outside. the law violates the non-establishment clause. ii. if they so desire. ii. Applicant should inform the licensing authority of the date. have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Right of Assembly and Petition 1. taken as a whole. 32 . 374 US 203) 1.iii. Clauses under Section 5 1. Authorities must apply for issuance of search warrant. as may be provided by law. iii. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. Free exercise of Religion Distinction between the clauses (School District v. v. It must have a secular legislative purpose. Rights guaranteed under Section 6: 1. Apply clear and present danger test. The free exercise of religion clause withdraws from legislative power the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. Second. iii. 2. 3. Section 5. The decision of the public authority. but in another public place. Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode. Requisites for government aid to be allowable: 1. the public place where and the time when the assembly will take place. Section 6. political or scientific value. While the freedom to believe (non-establishment) is absolute. The grant or refusal should be based on the application of the Clear and Present Danger Test. without discrimination or preference. two requisites must be met. Procedure for seizure of allegedly obscene publications i. Conviction is subject to appeal. In order to show a violation of this clause. Rules on assembly in private properties: Only the consent of the owner of the property or person entitled to possession thereof is required. The test of compliance with the non-establishment clause can be stated as follows: What are the purposes and primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion. The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion. 2. public safety or public health. 2. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. the moment such belief flows over into action. Non-establishment clause 2. 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. in order for a law to comply with the non-establishment clause. If the public authority is of the view that there is an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. whether favorable or adverse. Judge will determine whether they are in fact “obscene”. The standards for allowable impairment of speech and press also apply to the right of assembly and petition. 2. Judge will issue a search warrant. vi. it has a secular legislative purpose. 201 of the RPC. shall forever be allowed. First. 3. It must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions. Schempp. iv. Thus. B. Court must be convinced that the materials are obscene. lacks serious literary. the applicants must be heard on the matter. It must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. it becomes subject to government regulation. the person affected must show the coercive effect of the legislation as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. artistic.
passport officers) in the interest of national security. A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts. Intelligence information 3. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. 33 . No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract. Supreme Court deliberations Section 10. Discretion of government The government has discretion with respect to the authority to determine what matters are of public concern and the authority to determine the manner of access to them. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts. When does a law impair the obligation of contracts: 1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance 2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed 3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. 2) During administrative investigations. as shown by the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for these. Recognized restrictions on the right of the people to information: 1. 4) Signing of arrest reports and booking sheets. NBI) with respect to a criminal offense. May be curtailed even by administrative officers (ex. Trade secrets 4. 4) Right to be informed of these rights. preferably of his own choice 3) Right to be provided with the services of counsel if he cannot afford the services of one. public safety. Right of access to official records and documents Persons entitled to the above rights: Only Filipino citizens.Curtailment of rights: RIGHT 1. Right to information on matters of public concern 2. National security matters 2. Diplomatic correspondence 6. the right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty of abode. Rights of person under investigation for the commission of an offense. Section 11. DOJ. as may be provided by law. or public health. When rights are available: 1) AFTER a person has been taken into custody or 2) When a person is otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. 4) Statements made to a private person. 3) When the investigation is being conducted by the government (police. Manglapus) Section 7. 3) Confessions made by an accused at the time he voluntarily surrendered to the police or outside the context of a formal investigation. Exception: Once there is a move among the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions from the suspect. Liberty of abode 2. Section 12. Rights guaranteed under Section 7 1. (Marcos v. Right to travel MANNER OF CURTAILMENT Lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law. Closed door cabinet meetings 8. Rights of person under investigation for the Commission of an offense CODE: SCISI 1) Right to remain silent 2) Right to have competent and independent counsel. When rights are not available: 1) During a police line-up. Executive sessions 7. Hence. Note: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are distinct from the right to return to one’s country. Banking transactions 5.
Factors considered in setting the amount of bail: 1) Ability to post bail 2) Nature of the offense 3) Penalty imposed by law 4) Character and reputation of the accused 5) Health of the accused 6) Strength of the evidence 7) Probability of appearing at the trial 8) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds 9) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested 10) If accused is under bond in other cases Implicit limitations on the right to bail: 1. Right to bail Who are entitled to bail: 1) All persons ACTUALLY DETAINED 2) shall. being the fruit of a poisonous tree. 2. The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law. 2. 6. Who are not entitled to bail: 1) Persons charged with offenses PUNISHABLE by RECLUSION PERPETUA or DEATH. which is an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. Requisites of valid waiver: 1) Waiver should be made in WRITING 2) Waiver should be made in the PRESENCE OF COUNSEL. not. a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance. Right to bail is not available in the military. 1) The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. 2) Therefore. It is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the state. 5. Section 13. provided that the facts proved have a reasonable connection to the ultimate fact presumed. Rights of a person charged with a criminal offense Right to due process of law Right to be presumed innocent Right to be heard by himself and counsel Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him Right to have a speedy. Apart from bail. 7. in deportation proceedings. “RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL” 34 .Exclusionary rule 1) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him (the accused). Section 14. any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is also inadmissible. 3. The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases. Note: 1. 3) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial. “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” The Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from providing that proof of certain facts leads to a prima facie presumption of guilt. Presumption of guilt should not be conclusive. BEFORE CONVICTION 3) Be entitled to bail. 2. impartial and public trial Right to meet the witnesses face to face Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf “DUE PROCESS” This means that the accused can only be convicted by a tribunal which is required to comply with the stringent requirements of the rules of criminal procedure.g. when evidence of guilt is strong 2) Persons CONVICTED by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal. 4. Rights of an accused 1. 2) Excessive bail shall not be required. e. Other rights in relation to bail.
Definition of impartial trial The accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgement. the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements. the court must give him a reasonable time to get one. However. the judge must: (i) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment (ii) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel (iii) If the accused desires counsel. D. Right to counsel (a) Right to counsel means the right to EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION. After arraignment. Right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses “RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM” Purposes of the right: 1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defenses 2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same cause 3) To inform the court of the facts alleged. 35 . “RIGHT TO SPEEDY. it amounts to an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. Definition of public trial The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the accused. If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense. the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity. and that any time a witness refers to a name by which he is known. Effect of dismissal based on the ground of violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial If the dismissal is valid. B. Right to an impartial judge 4. he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. that trial in absentia is allowed only if the accused has been validly arraigned. but cannot afford one. and (ii) His failure to appear is unjustifiable. the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes.The right to be heard includes the following rights: 1. a counsel de oficio must be appointed (iv) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel. (b) If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel. Right of confrontation and cross-examination 5. EXCEPTION: If the accused. 3. trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of accused. provided 2 requisites are met. has stipulated that he is indeed the person charged with the offense and named in the information. The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. the public may be excluded. (i) Accused has been duly notified. However. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated. It is an element of due process. The right to be present covers the period from ARRAIGNMENT to PROMULGATION of sentence. if the evidence to be adduced is “offensive to decency or public morals”. C. the witness is to be understood as referring to him. If he is detained. IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL” 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Factors used in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated Time expired from the filing of the information Length of delay involved Reasons for the delay Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused Prejudice caused to the defendant. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused Remedy of the accused if his right to speedy trial has been violated He can move for the dismissal of the case. Right to be present at the trial A. 2. after arraignment. Note. The accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up.
Punishment for a crime for which the party has been duly convicted 2. Distinction between an accused and an ordinary witness 1. An accused can refuse to take the witness stand by invoking the right against selfincrimination. it cannot be availed of during preliminary investigations. Return to work order issued by the DOLE Secretary or the President 6. He can only refuse to answer specific questions which would incriminate him in the commission of an offense. Distinction between Section 14 and Section 16 While the rights of an accused only apply to the trial phase of criminal cases. Trial in absentia under Section 14(2) 3. Thus. the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against self-incrimination. 1. Principal exceptions to the right of confrontation 1. 2. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. 36 . The right does NOT PROHIBIT the examination of the body of the accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical evidence. 2. or administrative bodies. To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness 2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense 3. the testimony of the witness should be excluded. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. However. obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification. quasi-judicial. Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them. Forfeiture of property) Who can invoke the right: Only natural persons. In criminal cases 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL or ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings. Right against involuntary servitude Definition of involuntary servitude It is every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to another no matter under what form such servitude may be disguised. With respect to child testimony Section 16. In administrative proceedings if the accused is liable to a penalty (Ex. When the right to cross-examine is demandable It is demandable only during trials. The admissibility of “dying declarations” 2. the right to a speedy disposition of cases covers ALL phases of JUDICIAL. However. Minors under patria potestas are obliged to obey their parents. To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness Failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is due to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the prosecution.The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays. When is a question incriminating: A question tends to incriminate when the answer of the accused or the witness would establish a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence to prove the commission of a crime by the accused or the witness. either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto. An ordinary witness cannot refuse to take the stand. Section 17. 3. The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession which might tend to incriminate him. When the right can be invoked: 1. Exceptions: 1. “RIGHT TO MEET WITNESS FACE TO FACE” Purposes of the right: 1. Hence. In naval enlistment: a person who enlists in a merchant ship may be compelled to remain in service until the end of the voyage 4. Posse comitatus for the apprehension of criminals 5. a third person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it. Scope of right What is PROHIBITED is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness. Section 18.
First Sentence: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 4) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed. Thus.Section 19. 2. degrading and inhuman”? 1. whether express or implied. Reason: Without a valid penalty. If an act punished by a law and an ordinance. resulting in any liability to pay money. It must not be excessive. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel. Section 21. A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused. 2) Thus. or dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused will bar a subsequent prosecution. Under the second kind of jeopardy. the law is not a penal law. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. The accused has been duly convicted. then paraded throughout town. When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite) CODE: CICAV 1) A person is charged 2) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction 3) Before a court of competent jurisdiction 4) After the person is arraigned 5) Such person enters a valid plea. Prohibition against cruel. if an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him. 2. Standards used: 1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa and B. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society 4. this may result in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu. or is an element thereof. 3) A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if: A.e. one that includes or is necessarily included in the first offense. 3. Ex. Ex. Excessive fine A fine is excessive. or is an attempt or frustration of the first. Second Sentence: When an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. 3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense. 2. conviction. when under any circumstance. the accused presents evidence of complete self-defense. Definition of debt under Section 20 1) Debt refers to a CONTRACTUAL obligation. When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE) 1) Acquittal 2) Conviction 3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused 37 . No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. Being tarred and feathered. upon pleading guilty. all other types of obligations are not within the scope of this prohibition. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment would. 2) The first jeopardy must have terminated. It must not be applied arbitrarily. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 3) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC. What are the TWO KINDS OF JEOPARDY? 1. Being drawn and quartered. The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings. only conviction or acquittal – not dismissal without the express consent of the accused – will bar a subsequent prosecution. A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Note: Fr. Section 20. it is disproportionate to the offense. acquittal. i. Under the first kind of jeopardy. When does jeopardy NOT attach: 1) If information does not charge any offense 2) If. Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: CODE: ATS 1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. degrading and inhuman punishment When is a penalty “cruel. degrading or inhuman.
was lawful. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. 2) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits 3) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal. imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right. Examples of termination of jeopardy: 1) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. 3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. which. What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”: (under the 1st sentence of Section 21) 1) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases. 2) Under (1)(b). 4) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. 4) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution. This amounts to an acquittal. Definition of double jeopardy (2nd sentence of Sec. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party. 5) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion. 6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. it would not be considered a supervening event. 1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law. Retrospective 3. it is not necessary that the offense be the same. if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution’s incompetence. This amounts to an acquittal. 5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT. Exception: If motion is based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence. a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where: A. 21) Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same. criminal. and punishes such action. Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the same law. Note: The prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to retrospective PENAL laws. and which was innocent when done.4) Dismissal on the merits. 3) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution. The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge. When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal: 1) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. when done. Definition of ex-post facto law. subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused. 2) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former information. Effect of appeal by the accused: If the accused appeals his conviction. This is a dismissal on the merits. C. or a proclamation of amnesty. in effect. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law 1. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court. 4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused. 2) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense. Causes prejudice to the accused Definition of BILL OF ATTAINDER 1) A bill of attainder is a LEGISLATIVE act which inflicts punishment W/O JUDICIAL trial. Refers to criminal matters 2. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. For there to be double jeopardy. B. 38 . Section 22. SUPERVENING FACTS 1) Under the Rules of Court. 3) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other. he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy. the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply. 2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.
3) Elements of the bill of attainder A.2) The bill of attainder does not need to be directed at a specifically named person. It may also refer to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial. The penal burden is imposed DIRECTLY by the LAW W/O JUDICIAL trial. 39 . B. C. There must be a LAW. The law imposes a PENAL burden on a NAMED INVIDIDUAL/EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS of a GROUP.
By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country How may one reacquire citizenship: 1. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship. 1973 of Filipino mothers. How may one lose citizenship: 1. however. by their act or omission they are deemed. children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. 1973. 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Therefore. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country 5. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. she lost her Filipino citizenship. By direct act of Congress 2. When must the election be made: The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP Who are citizens of the Philippines? 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. to have renounced it. 3) Those born before January 17. By express renunciation of citizenship 3. you can elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry. Natural-born citizens: 1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. 2) The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen. By naturalization 3. Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3) Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution: Prior to the 1973 Constitution. Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship: 1) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport 2) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country) Re-acquisition of citizenship Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. By repatriation CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I. Sec. if a Filipina married an alien. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution. IV. Marriage of Filipino with an alien: 1) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship 2) Exception: If. By naturalization in a foreign country 2. By subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution 4. the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. Effects of naturalization: 1) The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well. her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17. provided that she does not have any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized. under the law. Bill of Rights 40 . 2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. Modes of acquiring citizenship: 1) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth 2) Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship 3) Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born citizen. Hence. the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. Under the 1973 Constitution. So.
Garchitorena G. This carries the right to criticize the action and conduct of a public official. 2. E. Petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of libel. What Sec. Inapplicability a.D. The concern of the Comelec cannot be justified since there is no showing that exit polls cause chaos in voting centers. G. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner wrote a letter to the Executive Secretary requesting for information with respect to the names of executive officials holding multiple positions. Administrative Investigation Sebastian v. 132269 (April 27. The Executive Secretary is obliged to allow the inspection and copying of appointment papers. Petitioner filed this petition to compel the Executive Secretary to answer his letter. During interrogation. III of the Constitution prohibits is the passage of a law which enlarges.R. No. even if the defamatory statement is false. Land Bank of the Philippines G. and a list of recipients of luxury vehicles previously seized by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to the Office of the President. A limitation on them may be justified only by a danger of such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Freedom of Speech and of the Press 1. HELD: In libel cases against public officials.R. 140835 (August 14. HELD: The Memorandum of Agreement does not impose any additional taxes which would unduly impair the contract of sale between petitioner and private respondent. No. appointments to public offices and utilization of public property. 10 Art. a Certificate of Payment should first be obtained from the BIR. HELD: It is the duty of the Executive Secretary to answer the letter of the petitioner. Eminent Domain Santos v. 2000) HELD: Compensation for land expropriation for agrarian reform is valid. Narvasa G. Accused claimed that their sworn statements were not admissible in evidence since they were not assisted by counsel. the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Here. 2000) FACTS: Harrison Motors sold two trucks to Navarro. Freedom of expression ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice. The prosecution presented the sworn statements as evidence. Rights During Investigation 1. Comelec 323 SCRA 811 FACTS: Comelec came up with a resolution prohibiting the conduct of exit polls during elections for the reason that exit polls have the tendency to cause confusion. Drilon 327 SCRA 107 FACTS: Private respondents published a full-page advertisement in five major daily newspapers. they submitted sworn statements. with knowledge that it was false or not. that is. Prohibition Against Impairment of Contracts Harrison Motors Corporation v. Instead. H. 41 . even if made not completely in cash. petitioner failed to prove actual malice on the part of the private respondents. the Land Transportation Office and the Bureau of Customers (BOC) entered in a Memorandum of Agreement which provided that for purposes of registering vehicles.R. No. 137431 (September 7. Subsequently. Navarro G. these administrative orders were passed to enforce payment of existing BIR taxes and customs duties at the time of importation. copies of their appointments. Libel Jalandoni v. No. The statements embodied in the advertisement are covered by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. abridges or in any manner changes the intention of the contracting parties. The letter deals with matters of public concern. Right to Information Gonzales v. 2000) FACTS: Some employees of the post office were investigated by the chief postal service officer in connection with missing postage stamps. for liability to arise. the alleged defamatory statement must relate to official conduct.R. These ads contained allegations naming petitioner who was then a PCGG Commissioner of having committed illegal and unauthorized acts. Government agents seized and detained the two trucks of Navarro after discovering that there were still unpaid taxes. HELD: Conducting exit polls and reporting their results are valid exercises of freedom of speech and of the press. F. 114028 (October 18.
No.HELD: The right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers. The lawyer was called only on the 4th day of detention when the accused was about to put down his confession in writing. No. 129296 (September 25. 3. Photograph People v. being purely a mechanical act. July 5. 2000) c. G. Sufficiency of Warning People v. they are entitled to the rights of persons under custodial investigation. 2000) 42 Applicability . 130594. 2000) HELD: Confession given by the accused without the assistance of counsel. HELD: The confession is inadmissible. and that he had the right to be assisted by counsel of his own choice. (See also People v. No. People v. HELD: The confession is inadmissible. 128551 (July 31. The trial court convicted him of murder only. b. 117802 (April 27. 2000) FACTS: Legaspi and Franco were charged and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. 122733 (October 2. Before he was interrogated. Gutang v. During trial. while on the way to the police station. They were identified as perpetrators of the crime by someone from a group of eleven residents who were invited for questioning by the police.R.R. Legaspi G. The moment the accused was arrested and detained. Custodial Investigation People v. the prosecution offered his confession in evidence.R. 1992. Inviting certain individuals for questioning and asking them a single question as to their whereabouts on the day of the crime do not amount to custodial investigation. that any statement he might give could be used as evidence against him. 2000) FACTS: The accused was arrested for murder. 2000) HELD: The accused-appellant’s defense that the identification made by the private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible because the appellant stood at the line-up without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible. Sirad.R. Bariquit G. 4. No. No.R.R. Manriquez G. After four days. The accused now claims that their rights during custodial investigation were violated. People v. 129970 (April 5. No. is inadmissible in evidence. The trial court rejected the photographs taken of the accused immediately after the incident on the ground that the same were taken when the accused was already under the mercy of the police. No. No. Gallarde 325 SCRA 835 FACTS: Accused was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. the police investigator took down his extrajudicial confession and called a lawyer who conferred with the accused for ten minutes and executed his confession. he was informed of his right to remain silent. 122510 (March 17. The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up is outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel. People v. HELD: No rights were transgressed inasmuch as Legaspi and Franco were not yet singled out as perpetrators of the crime on November 29. 135406 (July 11. HELD: The taking of pictures of an accused. 2000) HELD: Receipt by the accused of prohibited drugs is inadmissible in evidence. Valdez G. The accused was given only a perfunctory recitation of his rights. is not a violation of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination. Samolde G. 2000) FACTS: The accused was arrested for bank robbery. he was already under custodial investigation. G. Police Line-Up People v. Partiare G.R. People G. This is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. even without the assistance of counsel. When certain persons are already singled out and pinpointed as authors of the crime.R.
No. No. They executed an extra-judicial confession wherein they narrated their participation in the commission of the crime.R. G. CA 43 c. The accused argued that their confession were inadmissible in evidence. No. Gallardo. it is inadmissible. H. People v. Obrero G. 130590 (October 18.R. 2 ) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. 109773 (March 30. 2000) HELD: While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators. 2000) HELD: When the confession of the accused was given without the assistance of counsel and the accused did not object. Inadmissible Evidence . the extra-judicial confession is inadmissible evidence. September 18. 324 SCRA 97) People v. It was not prepared at the time the waiver was being prepared since another typewriter was used in preparing the extrajudicial confession. 123147. No. Waiver b. Llanes. The text of the confession is darker suggesting that a different typewriter was used from that used to type the name of the accused. 323 SCRA 318) 6. 3) the confession must be express.R.R.FACTS: Accused were found guilty of two counts of murder. they would be provided with one for free. 2000. No. G. They also signed a waiver in the presence of a counsel which contained that they did not want the assistance of counsel. since they were not informed of their constitutional right. As part of the police force. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former’s appointment during the course of the investigation. 2000) FACTS: Appellant was charged with robbery with homicide. G. Right to Bail Lardes v. As such. and People v. and 4) the confession must be in writing. he could not be expected to have effectively assisted the accused during the investigation. 5.R. 1000801 (August 25. he waives his right to object. 2000) FACTS: The trial court convicted the accused of murder. HELD: Rights to remain silent and to counsel were violated. 2000) People v. Independence of Counsel People v. 128045. The lawyers conferred with the accused before their investigation. Naag 322 SCRA 710 HELD: Circumstances show that the extrajudicial confession was signed without the assistance of counsel. It is intrinsically flawed. 140268. (See also People v. Continente G. 2000. HELD: The written warning contained an explanation that the investigation dealt with the participation of the accused who chose not to give any statement to the investigator and a warning that any statement obtained from the accused might be used against them in court. No. the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one.R. 122142 (May 17. Mameng. August 24. Base G. (See also People v. His extra-judicial confession was presented as evidence. Daeng. At the time he assisted accused-appellant. October 13. They contained an advice that the accused might engage the service of a lawyer of their own choice and that if they could not afford the service of a lawyer. (See also People v. Admissibility of Evidence a. Despite the manifestation of the accused that they intended to give their statements. Also. Admissible Evidence People v. the investigator requested two lawyers to act as counsel for the accused. The accused were informed of their constitutional rights in the presence of their counsel.R. The lawyer’s explanation on the effects of the waiver is unsatisfactory. Among the evidence the trial court relied upon were the confession of the accused. People v. The confession are admissible in evidence. he was the station commander of the WPD and a PC captain. No. People v. Hermoso G. HELD: Extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because counsel for accused was not independent. Paglinawan. Lumandong 327 SCRA 650 HELD: The four fundamental requirements on the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession are: 1) the confession must be voluntary. It was merely attached as page 2 of the waiver.
The cross examination of the second daughter centered on what she did when she saw her sister being raped. No.R. accused cannot be sentenced to death. Absence of Violation People v. 2000) FACTS: Accused were charged with robbery with homicide. (See also People v. April 5. Bernaldez. 2000) 44 . Villar 322 SCRA 390 HELD: If no qualifiying circumstances were alleged in the information. Absence of Qualifying Circumstance People v. Date of Commission of Crime Sumbang v. There was no violation of his right to counsel when his new lawyer committed a procedural blunder. 2000) FACTS: Petitioner was found guilty of the Bouncing Check Law. HELD: Accused should have informed the trial court if he had difficulties with his counsel. Right to be Informed 1. 129288 (March 30. Nadera 324 SCRA 490 FACTS: The accused was charged for raping his two daughters. 2. He pleaded guilty. 140188 (August 3. accused was convicted based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Aquino G. He had the opportunity to present his own version of the events but he just kept quiet. 135098 (April 12. Alnero. he was denied of his right to counsel.324 SCRA 321 FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition for bail.R. HELD: Bails should be granted before arraignment. it was shown that the victims also suffered injuries. The lawyer did not present any evidence. and expressed his conformity for the admission of the evidence of the prosecution. (See also People v. No. Pambid. I. Paglinawan 324 SCRA 97 FACTS: The accused was charged with murder. the accused might be precluded from filing a motion to quash. Presence of Violation People v. No. No. No. HELD: The case should be remanded because of the neglect of the lawyer of the accused in representing his cause. 322 SCRA 762). 4. HELD: Petitioner was represented by counsel of his choice in the trial court. 2. Right to Counsel 1. During trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.R. G. The lawyer of the accused did not cross-examine the first daughter because he was convinced that she was telling the truth. Petitioner claimed that he had a difficulty in finding a new lawyer and that when the CA denied his motion for reconsideration. 2000) HELD: If a person is charged only with one count of rape. G. 134536. even though the victim was raped more than once. The trial court granted it but imposed a condition that the approval of the bail bond would only be made after arraignment to make sure that the accused could not delay his trial by absenting himself. the accused can only be convicted of one count of rape. Otherwise. Villanueva v. People G. I. Accused cannot be held liable for the injuries.R. 2000) 5. HELD: A person cannot be convicted of a crime for which he has not been charged. Different Offense People v. General Court Martial PRO-Region 6 G. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied because it was filed out of time. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. Besides.R. Accused claimed that he was denied of his constitutional right to counsel. Number of Offense People v. 129164 (March 15. and also by a counsel de parte before the CA.
who were officers of the National Food Authority. O. 120350 (Oct. The subpoena for the first witness remained unserved while the subpoena for the second was received four days before date of hearing. An additional charge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against the petitioners. At the next hearing. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases Dansal v. Crispin 327 SCRA 167 HELD: Affidavit of a witness who was not presented as such is not admissible in evidence. HELD: The delay was not undue since it was brought about by peculiar unforeseen circumstances. HELD: The delay is not entirely attributable to the accused. The composition of the court martial was changed four times. the two witnesses did not appear. Right to Confrontation People v. Yambot G. Petitioner-accused is not without fault in the delay of the prosecution against her. The accused argued that his right to a speedy trial has been violated since the case has been going on for years. N. On July 30. He filed a motion to quash on the ground of prescription which was denied. His silence should be interpreted as a waiver of such right. the subpoena for the first witness was not served because she was unknown at her given address. No. 138596 (October 12. Arambulo v. No. Petitioners argued that the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation violated their right to a speedy disposition of their cases.R. HELD: The prosecution had no fault in the delay since the membership of the general court martial underwent changes four times and none of the original members who heard the prosecution witnesses were reappointed in the succeeding court martial. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. He filed motion for reconsideration which was also denied. Laqui G. The trial court denied the request of the counsel of the accused for postponement and considered the case submitted for decision even though it issued a warrant for the arrest of the second witness. HELD: The right to a speedy trial is violated only when there is an unreasonable delay without the fault of the accused. while the subpoena for the other witness was received only three days before the hearing.FACTS: Petitioner. M. 1992. 2000) FACTS: A libel case was filed against the petitioner-accused. Petitioner argued that the inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation violated right to speedy disposition of his case. More than one year and four months after the cases were submitted for resolution. Domingo v. was charged with double murder before a general court martial. Fernandez 327 SCRA 145 FACTS: Petitioners. The trial court should have granted postponement. Besides. the petitioner failed to assert his right to a speedy trial. It was only after the general court martial resumed hearing of the case in 1999 that petitioner invoked his right to a speedy trial. a case was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan. The SC nullified the authority of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which necessitated the issuance of AO #1 by the Ombudsman authorizing the Special Prosecutor to continue with the preliminary investigation. 1987. It is consistent with reasonable delay. It cannot be said that petitioners found themselves in a situation oppressive to their rights simply by reason of delay. 13. a complaint was filed with the Tanodbayan against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The assigned prosecutor retired in 1989. HELD: The concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative and flexible concept.R. Petitioner-accused later on claimed that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Right to Compulsory Process People v. Sandiganbayan 322 SCRA 655 FACTS: On May 26. the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution recommending the filing of a case for estafa thru falsification and a case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the petitioners. After the 45 . When it was their turn to present evidence. Petitioner-accused filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals which was dismissed. 2000) FACTS: The accused were charged with kidnapping for ransom. who is a member of the Philippine Constabulary. The protection under the speedy disposition of cases should not operate as to deprive the government of the inherent prerogative to prosecute criminal cases or in seeing to it that all who approach the bar of justice be afforded a fair opportunity to present their side. were charged with estafa thru falsification of a public document in the office of the Ombudsman.
No. No. 2000) HELD: Death penalty is not cruel. She ran for governor. Comelec G. a complaint was filed against petitioners with the Tanodbayan. The length of time it took before the conclusion of the preliminary investigation may only be attributed to the adherence of the Ombudsman and NBI to the rudiments of fair play. HELD: There was no violation of right to speedy trial. 2000) II. 127444 (September 13. Petitioners argued that the case should be dismissed for unjustified delay in the filing of the information. Termination People v. No. she has dual citizenship. The prosecutor issued another subpoena to give petitioner chance to file counteraffidavits which he filed only on March 1992. The NBI recommended the prosecution of the petitioners. Petitioner. G. Citizenship Valles v. Different Offenses People v.R. Prohibition Against Cruel Punishment People v. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was born in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. 2000) FACTS: Trial court acquitted respondent from a case of murder. 2. Meris.R. On Oct. Opponent filed petition to disqualify her on the ground of dual citizenship. 127026 (May 31. Prosecution cannot accomplish through a writ of certiorari what it could not do so by appeal. 1987. March 28. Sandiganbayan G. Velasco G. 1934 to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. her opponent. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari on the ground that the trial court deliberately and wrongfully interpreted certain facts and evidence. The subpoena sent to petitioner was return unserved because he was no longer connected with his previous office.R. the Tanodbayan recommended filing a case for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. HELD: On the ground of double jeopardy. She ran for governor. Double Jeopardy 1. 46 . 1986. there was an application for an immigrant certificate of residence and she was a holder of an Australian passport. Comelec G. The delay was not capricious nor oppressive but was brought about by frequent amendments of procedural laws in the initial stages of the case. 1990 without first resolving the motion for reinvestigation. 2000) FACTS: The complaint against petitioner for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was referred by the Deputy Ombudsman to the NBI for investigation. Raro v. Holding of an Australian passport and an alien certificate of registration does not constitute an effective renunciation of citizenship and does not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. Q. No. Ong 322 SCRA 38 HELD: An illegal recruiter can be charged with estafa and illegal recruitment (See also People v. No.reorganization by the Ombudsman of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. 109271 (March 14. two cases of frustrated murder and a case for illegal possession of firearms outside of his residence. No. 117145. 2000) FACTS: Respondent was born in Australia on May 16. Castillo v. 137000 (August 9. filed a case for disqualification on the ground that she is not a Filipino citizen since she was issued an alien certificate of registration.R. P. Sandiganbayan G. The Ombudsman filed an information against petitioners on November 5. No. However. the petitioners argue that the four-year delay in the completion of the preliminary investigation violated right to speedy disposition of cases. Australia follows jus soli. HELD: The respondent is a Filipino citizen since her father is a Filipino. the case was assigned to a new prosecutor. 108431 (July 14. an acquittal is final and unappealable. 30. Valles v.R. At most.R. 2000) FACTS: On August 25. 137000 (August 9. Petitioners filed motion for reinvestigation.R. HELD: It took the NBI 2 years to complete its report. Alicante G. The resolution recommending the filing of the case against petitioner has to be reviewed.
or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. It includes motion pictures as well as what is known as symbolic speech such as the wearing of an armband as a symbol of protest. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. Such declaration operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. tape or disc recorded. Filing a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship because in the certificate. written. the candidate declares himself to be a Filipino citizen and that he will support the Philippine Constitution. Peaceful picketing has also been included within the meaning of speech. of expression. The fact that she has dual citizenship does not automatically disqualify her from running for public office. Prohibition against SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT 47 . Prohibitions under Section 4 3. whether oral.HELD: Dual citizenship as a disqualification refers to citizens with dual allegiance. or of the press. ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS Section 4. What are considered protected speech: Protected speech includes every form of expression. Prohibition against PRIOR RESTRAINT 4.
license taxes based on gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of advertising in any newspaper h. even if the words used are neither mild nor temperate. Balancing of Interests Test . To enjoy protection: c. Prior restraint means official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Comment on their private lives. With respect to public personalities (politicians. Public Service Commission of NY. 238 US 697) d. in a patently offensive way. does not. OPINIONS. v. anyone with a connection to a newsworthy event). Minnesota. applying contemporary community standards would find that the work. if not germane to their public personae. 5. actors. LIBEL C. social or religious ideas. not of fact. Dangerous Tendency Test 2. The courts will then decide where the greater weight should be placed.e. OBSCENITY C.S. and d.Prohibition against prior restraint 2. 48 3. Whether the average person. California) iv. Test for obscenity (Miller v. Government can prevent publication about the number/locations of its troops (Near v. and f. FAIR COMMENT (U. i. flat license fees for the privilege of selling religious books When prohibition does not apply c. (Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. specifically defined by law. Rule). A communication which no more than proposes a commercial transaction. speech which communicates political. v. It must not be false or misleading. opinions can be aired regarding their public actuations. however. 6. These enjoy the same degree of protection. 4. and are not considered actionable. Whether the work depicts or describes. It should not propose an illegal transaction. Obscene publications. During a war. Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if: d. appeals to the prurient interest. 3. What is important is that the opinion is the true and honest opinion of the person. Clear and Present Danger Test CRITERION There should be a RATIONAL CONNECTION between the speech and the evil apprehended. D. are not protected. e. Government has a substantial interest to protect. The statements are not used to attack personalities but to give one’s opinion on decisions and actions. It is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest. taken as a whole. Commercial Speech 4. Standards for allowable subsequent punishment TEST 1. These are statements of OPINION. Commercial speech. movie censorship f. sexual conduct. Examples/forms of prior restraint e. Freedom of Speech The doctrine on freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of “core” speech. judicial prior restraint = injunction against publication g. The courts should BALANCE the PUBLIC INTEREST served by legislation on one hand and the FREEDOM OF SPEECH (or any other constitutional right) on the other. The regulation directly advances that interest. There should be a clear and present danger that the words when used under such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has a right to prevent. 447 US 557) Unprotected Speech 3. Ex.
xii. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. It must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions. The free exercise of religion clause withdraws from legislative power the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. the moment such belief flows over into action. must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity so that they may. Judge will issue a search warrant. the person affected must show the coercive effect of the legislation as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. If the public authority is of the view that there is an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. vii. xi. 201 of the RPC. Procedure for seizure of allegedly obscene publications vii. Thus. taken as a whole. Section 5. Right of Assembly and Petition 4. viii. 374 US 203) 3. Free exercise of Religion Distinction between the clauses (School District v. it has a secular legislative purpose. viii. The decision of the public authority. It must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Rules on assembly in private properties: Only the consent of the owner of the property or person entitled to possession thereof is required. Applicant should inform the licensing authority of the date. two requisites must be met. Conviction is subject to appeal. The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion. have recourse to the proper judicial authority. The application should be filed ahead of time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there are valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant. the law violates the non-establishment clause. Second. Court must be convinced that the materials are obscene. Proper action should be filed under Art. the applicants must be heard on the matter. vi. The standards for allowable impairment of speech and press also apply to the right of assembly and petition. ix. D. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. the public place where and the time when the assembly will take place. Non-establishment clause 4. Rules on assembly in public places: v.vi. Clauses under Section 5 3. While the freedom to believe (non-establishment) is absolute. it becomes subject to government regulation. shall forever be allowed. public safety or public health. Authorities must apply for issuance of search warrant. Judge will determine whether they are in fact “obscene”. 49 . Schempp. In order to show a violation of this clause. as may be provided by law. Whether the work. its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. Section 6. 6. It must have a secular legislative purpose. It is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not. 5. x. 5. 4. in order for a law to comply with the non-establishment clause. Apply clear and present danger test. Requisites for government aid to be allowable: 4. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The grant or refusal should be based on the application of the Clear and Present Danger Test. whether favorable or adverse. 6. if they so desire. lacks serious literary. First. but in another public place. without discrimination or preference. 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. artistic. political or scientific value. The test of compliance with the non-establishment clause can be stated as follows: What are the purposes and primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security.
4.Rights guaranteed under Section 6: 3. 50 . Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode. Freedom to travel within the country and outside.
National security matters 10. (Marcos v. Intelligence information 11. public safety. Right of access to official records and documents Persons entitled to the above rights Only Filipino citizens.Curtailment of rights: RIGHT 1. Hence. Banking transactions 13. Closed door cabinet meetings 16. 51 . and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts. Discretion of government The government has discretion with respect to the authority to determine what matters are of public concern and the authority to determine the manner of access to them. or public health. as shown by the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for these. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Diplomatic correspondence 14. When does a law impair the obligation of contracts: 4) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance 5) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed 6) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts. the right to return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty of abode. Executive sessions 15. Manglapus) Section 7. Note: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are distinct from the right to return to one’s country. Right to travel MANNER OF CURTAILMENT Lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law. passport officers) in the interest of national security. Recognized restrictions on the right of the people to information: 9. Rights guaranteed under Section 7 3. Supreme Court deliberations Section 10. May be curtailed even by administrative officers (ex. Right to information on matters of public concern 4. Liberty of abode 2. Trade secrets 12. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract. as may be provided by law.
Exception: Once there is a move among the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions from the suspect. Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial. Right to bail Who are entitled to bail: 4) All persons ACTUALLY DETAINED 5) shall. Exclusionary rule 3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him (the accused). BEFORE CONVICTION 6) Be entitled to bail. Requisites of valid waiver: 3) Waiver should be made in WRITING 4) Waiver should be made in the PRESENCE OF COUNSEL. When rights are available: 5) AFTER a person has been taken into custody or 6) When a person is otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. be informed of these rights. being the fruit of a poisoned tree. When rights are not available: 5) During a police line-up. any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is also inadmissible. Rights of person under investigation for the commission of an offense. 7) When the investigation is being conducted by the government (police. 4) Therefore. 52 . DOJ. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.Section 12. 8) Statements made to a private person. 6) During administrative investigations. 8) Signing of arrest reports and booking sheets. when evidence of guilt is strong Persons CONVICTED by the trial court. 7) Confessions made by an accused at the time he voluntarily surrendered to the police or outside the context of a formal investigation. Who are not entitled to bail: 4) 5) 6) Persons charged with offenses PUNISHABLE by RECLUSION PERPETUA or DEATH. preferably of his own choice provided with the services of counsel if he cannot afford the services of one. Rights of person under investigation for the Commission of an offense CODE: SCISI 5) 6) 7) 8) Right Right Right Right to to to to remain silent have competent and independent counsel. NBI) with respect to a criminal offense. Section 13.
Note: 3. a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance. Right to due process of law 9. Apart from bail. 4. The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases. Rights of an accused Rights of a person charged with a criminal offense 8. “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” The Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from providing that proof of certain facts leads to a prima facie presumption of guilt. Right to be presumed innocent 10.g. Right to bail is not available in the military. Presumption of guilt should not be conclusive. 53 . Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him 12. 4) Excessive bail shall not be required. Section 14. provided that the facts proved have a reasonable connection to the ultimate fact presumed. 4. impartial and public trial 13. 3) The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Right to be heard by himself and counsel 11. The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law. Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf “DUE PROCESS” This means that the accused can only be convicted by a tribunal which is required to comply with the stringent requirements of the rules of criminal procedure. Right to have a speedy. in deportation proceedings. Right to meet the witnesses face to face 14.Other rights in relation to bail. not. e. Factors considered in setting the amount of bail: 11) Ability to post bail 12) Nature of the offense 13) Penalty imposed by law 14) Character and reputation of the accused 15) Health of the accused 16) Strength of the evidence 17) Probability of appearing at the trial 18) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds 19) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested 20) If accused is under bond in other cases Implicit limitations on the right to bail: 3.
the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity. After arraignment. Right to be present at the trial E. The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. However. EXCEPTION: If the accused. and His failure to appear is unjustifiable. “RIGHT TO SPEEDY. Right to counsel (c) Right to counsel means the right to EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION. The accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up. Effect of dismissal based on the ground of violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial If the dismissal is valid. (d) If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel. the court must give him a reasonable time to get one. The right to be present covers the period from ARRAIGNMENT to PROMULGATION of sentence. Right to an impartial judge 4. but cannot afford one. Right of confrontation and cross-examination 5. IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL” Factors used in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated 6) Time expired from the filing of the information 7) Length of delay involved 8) Reasons for the delay 9) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused 10) Prejudice caused to the defendant. 2.“RIGHT TO BE HEAR BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL” The right to be heard includes the following rights: 2. after arraignment. it amounts to an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. the judge must: (v) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment (vi) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel (vii) If the accused desires counsel. the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements. G. the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes. provided 2 requisites are met. While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgement. trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of accused. F. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated. a counsel de oficio must be appointed (viii) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel. (iii) (iv) Accused has been duly notified. and that any time a witness refers to a name by which he is known. H. 3. If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense. Right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses “RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM” Purposes of the right: 4) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defenses 5) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same cause 6) To inform the court of the facts alleged. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused 54 . the witness is to be understood as referring to him. Note. has stipulated that he is indeed the person charged with the offense and named in the information. that trial in absentia is allowed only if the accused has been validly arraigned.
the public may be excluded. “RIGHT TO MEET WITNESS FACE TO FACE” Purposes of the right: 3. 8) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed. When the right to cross-examine is demandable It is demandable only during trials. Trial in absentia under Section 14(2) 6. Principal exceptions to the right of confrontation 4. upon pleading guilty. When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite) CODE: CICAV 6) A person is charged 7) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction 8) Before a court of competent jurisdiction 9) After the person is arraigned 10) Such person enters a valid plea. and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused. To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness Failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is due to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the prosecution. he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. The admissibility of “dying declarations” 5. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. If an act punished by a law and an ordinance. To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness 4. 5) The first jeopardy must have terminated. However. Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: CODE: ATS 4) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. Examples of termination of jeopardy: 55 . When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE) 5) 6) 7) 8) Acquittal Conviction Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused Dismissal on the merits. When does jeopardy NOT attach: 5) If information does not charge any offense 6) If. The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays. If he is detained. the accused presents evidence of complete self-defense. if the evidence to be adduced is “offensive to decency or public morals”. Definition of impartial trial The accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. With respect to child testimony Section 21. it cannot be availed of during preliminary investigations. Definition of public trial The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the accused. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. It is an element of due process.Remedy of the accused if his right to speedy trial has been violated He can move for the dismissal of the case. either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto. 7) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC. the testimony of the witness should be excluded. 6) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Thus.
8) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. it would not be considered a supervening event. Section 22. and which was innocent when done. SUPERVENING FACTS 3) Under the Rules of Court. subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused.5) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. 10) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused. 10) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion. 8) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. it is not necessary that the offense be the same. 6) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. Definition of BILL OF ATTAINDER 56 . or a proclamation of amnesty. Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the same law. and punishes such action. Definition of ex-post facto law. in effect. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party. The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge. 9) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution’s incompetence. 6) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other. was lawful. 11) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court. When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal: 6) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply. 7) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law. What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”: (under the 1st sentence of Section 21) 4) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases. The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former information. criminal. 12) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. For there to be double jeopardy. This amounts to an acquittal. Note: The prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to retrospective PENAL laws. 21) Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same. 5) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where: D. imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right. 4) Under (1)(b). when done. F. 7) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution. This is a dismissal on the merits. he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy. 9) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution. Exception: If motion is based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence. Effect of appeal by the accused: If the accused appeals his conviction. E. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. Definition of double jeopardy (2nd sentence of Sec. which. 7) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits 8) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal. This amounts to an acquittal.
provided that she does not have any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized. Modes of acquiring citizenship: 4) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth 5) Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship 6) Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born citizen. 4) The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen. 6) Elements of the bill of attainder D. the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. if a Filipina married an alien. 1973 of Filipino mothers.4) A bill of attainder is a LEGISLATIVE act which inflicts punishment W/O JUDICIAL trial. 4) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship. 1973. Natural-born citizens: 3) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Effects of naturalization: 3) The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country) Re-acquisition of citizenship 57 . under the law. she lost her Filipino citizenship. Under the 1973 Constitution. Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3) Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution: Prior to the 1973 Constitution. F. There must be a LAW. to have renounced it. if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17. IV. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution. E. Hence. 5) The bill of attainder does not need to be directed at a specifically named person. So. however. children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. you can elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. by their act or omission they are deemed. 8) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. It may also refer to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial. ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP Who are citizens of the Philippines? 5) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution 6) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Therefore. Sec. Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship: 3) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport 4) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. Marriage of Filipino with an alien: 3) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship 4) Exception: If. 7) Those born before January 17. The law imposes a PENAL burden on a NAMED INVIDIDUAL/EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS of a GROUP. When must the election be made: The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority. The penal burden is imposed DIRECTLY by the LAW W/O JUDICIAL trial.
How may one lose citizenship: 6. By 7. By 9.Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. By 10. By repatriation 58 . By direct act of Congress 5. By naturalization 6.By naturalization in a foreign country express renunciation of citizenship subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution serving in the armed forces of an enemy country being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country How may one reacquire citizenship: 4. By 8. This involves taking an oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.