Article III, 1987 Constitution (Bill of Rights)

Purpose:

- to protect the citizens from the state

- to protect the encroachment of rights of the citizens from the state
- the state, being the sovereign, if we don’t have any rights, it becomes a dictatorship and tyranny
- to limit the power of the state
- to protect the civil and political rights of the people

Article III, 1987 Constitution (Bill of Rights)

- Sec 1, Article 3: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.”
- due process and equal protection of clause
- example of a violation of Article III: extra-judicial killings (you can be jailed without due process
and your property can be taken away from you)

Is it good if we lose any of those rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights?

- No. We will lose the Criminal Procedure, we will lose the right to be heard in court

Republic vs Sandiganbayan
GR NO. 10478, July 21, 2003

Facts:

Upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon Aguino
issued Executive Order No. 1 creating and tasking the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth of former
President Ferdinand Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. On
March 3, 1986, the raiding team confiscated alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General
Ramas found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano, in the absence of the latter, including items not
included in the warrant. Notably, the said raid was done when the revolutionary government effectively
withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution and when the 1987 Constitution was not yet ratified,
thus no constitutional right was guaranteed.

Issue:

Whether or not the confiscated items were illegally seized, hence inadmissible in evidence. (Section II,
Bill of Rights)

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that although the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not
operative during the interregnum, individuals are accorded protection by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a
signatory. The Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum, which provides
the right against unlawful searches and seizures.

Can a citizen invoke Bill Of Rights against private individuals?

- As a rule, BOR is protection against the state

Zulueta vs Court of Appeals

GR no. 107383 February 20, 1996

Facts:
Cecilia Zulueta is the Petitioner who offset the private papers of his husband Dr. Alfredo Martin. Dr. Martin
is a doctor of medicine while he is not in his house His wife took the 157 documents consisting of diaries,
cancelled check, greeting cards, passport and photograph, private respondents between her Wife and his
alleged paramours, by means of forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet. Cecilia Zulueta filed the papers
for the evidence of her case of legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of
medicine against her husband.
Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against Zulueta,
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. the trial court rendered judgment for Martin, declaring
him the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of Martin’s Complaint or those
further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her
behalf to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal
damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta filed the petition for review
with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
The papers and other materials obtained from forcible entrusion and from unlawful means are admissible
as evidence in court regarding marital separation and disqualification from medical practice.

Ruling/Held:
The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring “the
privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is
the wife who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity, who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced.
The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The intimacies between husband and
wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking
them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available
to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other
as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each
one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.

- SC upheld the invocation of BOR to a private citizen

- In that particular case, it is allowable to invoke the BOR against private individuals, as far as
Section III is concerned

Sec 1, Article 3: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.”

What is Due Process?

- Basic concept: any person cannot be deprived of life, liberty and property
- it is the opportunity to be heard, it does not even say that you should be heard actually, but it is
only the opportunity to be heard
- ex. right to submit a position paper, right to file a reply to a complaint

Two aspects of due process:

1. Substantial Due Process:

- refers to the intrinsic validity of the law that interferes with the rights of the person to his life,
liberty or property.
2. Procedural Due Process
- refers to the process or procedure by which individual rights are enforced.

Is the right to appeal a part of due process?

- Appeal is not part of due process. Once appeal is granted by law, a denial of which is denial of
due process.
- the appeal is not a constitutional right, it is a statutory right

Equal Protection Clause

- Every person and things belonging to the same class must be treated alike under like
circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
- 4 Elements:
 1. There must be substantial distinction to make real differences
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. It must not only apply to the existing conditions
4. It must apply equally to the same persons and things belonging to the same class

- As can be inferred from the foregoing requisites, the equal protection clause of the constitution
requires equality among the equals.

Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. vs Treasurer of Ormoc City

G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968

Facts:

The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed a municipal tax ordinance imposing on any and all productions
of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. one (1%) percent per export sale to the US
and other foreign countries.

In lieu, Ormoc Sugar filed before the CFI of Leyte a complaint against the City of Ormoc, its Treasurer,
Municipal Board and Mayor, alleging said ordinance is violative of the equal protection clause and the rule
of uniformity of taxation, among other things. Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. was the only sugar central in
Ormoc City at the time.

Issue:

WON the ordinance is violative of the constitutional provision on equal protection?

Ruling:

The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established
sugar central, of the same class as the present company, from the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even
if later a similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points
only to the company as the entity to be levied upon.

EPC applies only to persons or things identically situated and doesn’t bar a reasonable classification of the
subject of legislation.

A classification is reasonable where: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
(2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies not only to present
conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present; (4) the
classification applies only to those who belong to the same class.

Biraogo Vs. Philippine Truth Commission

GR No. 192935, December 7, 2010

Facts:
1. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC).
2. PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President, which is tasked to investigate
reports of graft and corruption and to submit its finding and recommendations to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman.
3. Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to
warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law.
4. Petitioners filed a case alleging the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1 for it violates the equal protection
clause as it selectively targets for investigation and prosecution officials and personnel of the previous
administration as if corruption is their peculiar species even as it excludes those of the other
administrations, past and present, who may be indictable. It does not apply equally to all members of
the same class such that the intent of singling out the “previous administration” as its sole object makes
the PTC an “adventure in partisan hostility.
5. They argue that the search for truth behind the reported cases of graft and corruption must encompass
acts committed not only during the administration of former President Arroyo but also during prior
administrations where the “same magnitude of controversies and anomalies” were reported to have
been committed against the Filipino people.
6. They assail the classification formulated by the respondents as it does not fall under the recognized
exceptions because first, “there is no substantial distinction between the group of officials targeted for
investigation by Executive Order No. 1 and other groups or persons who abused their public office for
 personal gain; and second, the selective classification is not germane to the purpose of Executive Order
No. 1 to end corruption.”

Issue:

WON E.O No. 1 is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause.

Ruling:
Yes, E.O No. 1 is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of
the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth “concerning the reported cases
of graft and corruption during the previous administration” The intent to single out the previous
administration is plain, patent and manifest. The Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class,
that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations
similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such
discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness
and selective retribution. While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be
struck down for being unconstitutional.