You are on page 1of 7

Article III BILL OF RIGHTS CASE DOCTRINES Related Concepts: POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION

health, morals, peace, education et. al. The regulation is a reasonable method of the protecting the public from the incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice such technology. United BF Homeownes v. City Mayor of Paranaque reclassification from residential to commercial areas the city council has the power to enact ordinances for the general welfare of the municipality or its inhabitants. Contractual restrictions on the use of property could not prevail over the reasonable exercise of police power SECTION 2 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by a judge under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. CASE DOCTRINES by: C D R

City of Manila v. Laguio - closing down houses of sin or of ill-repute Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies. Their power however is subordinate to the certain constitutional limitations. (related topics: procedural and substantive due process, equal protection of the laws, deprivation of property)

Moday v. CA expropriation of one hectare of land eminent domain government s right to appropriate, in the nature of compulsory sale to the state, private property for public use. Inheresnt possessed by the national legislature, it may be validly delegated to local governments.

Roxas and Co. Inc. v. CA application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law the implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State s police power and the power of eminent domain to the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property but where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of their own lands they own in excess of the maximum area ed, there is taking under the power of eminent domain (related topic: due process this must be observed in the exercise of the police power and eminent domain)

A. When is a search a reasonable search ?

LTO v. Butuan registration of tricycles LGU s under the Local Government Code now have the power to regulate the operation of tricycles for hire and grant franchises thereof but they are still subject to the guidelines prescribed by the DOTC. To regulate means to fix, establish or control, to adjust by rule, method or established mode. Taxation the power of the government to raise revenue in order to support its existence and carry out legislative objectives

Valmonte v. De Villa checkpoints Section 2 is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed or threatened to be infringed; reasonableness is determined by a fixed formula but from the circumstances of the case; not all searches and seizures are not ed; between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual; right against warrantless search which was reasonably conductedm the former should prevail

B. Requisites of a Valid Warrant

St. Luke s Employee s Association v. NLRC radiologic technology while the right of the workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the state to safeguard

Alvarez v. CFI of Tayabas definition of a search warrant an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or justice of peace and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before court, OATH - any form of

attestation that a party signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully

Corro v. Lising Philippine Times conclusions of law of military officers will not satisfy probable cause requirement for issuance of search warrants

People v. CA the general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime (protect the public from the abrasiveness of official intrusions). Exception: a search at any reasonable hour of day or night may be made when the application asserts that the property in on the person or place ordered to be searched. Absence of abuse of discretion, a search conducted at night where so allowed is not improper

People v. Veloso parliamentary club - JOHN DOE WARRANTS Valid IF the best description possible is given in the arrest warrant it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served by stating his occupation, personal appearance or peculiarities, place of residence or other circumstances which he may be identified

Soliven v. Makasiar The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. He shall: 1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest OR 2) if on the basis thereof, he does not find probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion of the existence of probable cause

Microsoft v. Maxicorp software probable cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper; OATH must refer to the truth of the facts WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOLEDGE OF THE PETITIONER OR HIS WITNESSES; probable cause deals with probability and not absolute certainty

Lim Sr. v. Felix certification by the fiscal of the existence of probable cause does not bind the judge. Preliminary inquiry determines probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (prosecutor); preliminary examination (judge) - investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest; preliminary investigation proper ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released.

Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP Metropolitan Mail and We Forum typographical error in specifying the address to be searched not sufficient to invalidate search warrant where the address intended appears on the face of the warrant; probable cause such facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched

Yao Sr. v. People GASUL and SHELLANE v. MASAGANA - examination of complainant and witnesses must be probing and exhaustive not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma; law does not require that the thihgs to be seized should be described in very precise and minute details.

C. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

People v. CA Abigail s Variety Store VOID warrant the claim that the place actually searched although not the one specified in the warrant is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant is unacceptable. What is material in determining the validity of the warrant is the place stated in the warrant, not the one they had in their thoughts; particularization of description may properly be done only by the judge and only in the warrant itself

Nolasco v. Pano articles seized by void warrants should be retuned to its owners Papa v. Mago Customs Search search warrant not necessary except if the place to be searched is a dwelling or house Tariff and Customs Code

People v. CFI of Rizal search of moving vehicle Carroll doctrine search of moving vehicles or automobiles no search warrant needed

E. Warrantless Arrests People. V. Lo Ho Wing - exception to the issuance of search warrant: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) search of moving vehicle; 3) seizure of evidence in plain view

Umil v. Ramos subversion a continuing offense - arrest without a warrant is justified if the person arrested in caught in flagrante delicto

People v. Evaristo evidence in plain view Harris v. Coolidge, Coolidge v. New Hampshire no search warrant needed; Malacat v. CA valid waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel; search incidental to a lawful arrest v. stop and frisk Terry Case probable cause is not required to conduct stop and frisk but mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate it. A genuine reason must exist.

People v. Aminudin - M/V Wilcon; marijuana not caught in flagrante delicto; search was unreasonable; evidence inadmissible

People v. De Gracia Eurocar Sales Office crime was in fact being committed search incidental to lawful arrest valid

Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago pedophiles the rights granted in Section 2 are available to all persons including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not People v. Mengote suspicious man outside a person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a bust street on a mere unexplained suspicion

People v. Johnson inspection at airports Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting lack of subjective expectation of privacy

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo PP 1017 case doctrines same as the ones above (related topics: freedom of expression; freedom to peaceably assemble)

Posadas v. Ombudsan Sigma Rho v. Scintilla Juris Arrest made without a valid warrant: Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court when in the presence of a police officer or a private individual: 1) the person arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense; 2) when an offense has actually been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested commited it; 3) when the person arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where his is serving final or temporary judgment (pending), escaped while being transferred

People v. Nuevas illegal possession of marijuana - in cases of searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; warrantless search, when valid: 1) incidental to lawful arrest; 2) evidence in plain view [a) valid prior intrusion, police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties, b) evidence was inadvertently discovered, c) evidence immediately apparent, d) plain view justified mere seizure with =out further search]; 3) search of moving vehicle; 4) consented warrantless search; 5) customs search; 6) stop and frisk; 7) exigent and emergency circumstances

Ladlad v. Velasco imprisoned by PP 1017; rebellion/sedition doctrine same as above and People v. De Gracia PROCEDURE IN CASES NOT REQUIRING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION > If the complaint is filed with the prosecutor, the prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM ITS FILING > If the complaint is filed with the MTC, and within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge FINDS NO PROBABLE CAUSE after personally examining the evidence in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, HE SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

D. Searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose

> He may require the submission or additional evidence, WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM NOTICE. If he still finds no probable cause, he shall dismiss the case. > IF HE FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or commitment order and hold him for trial. If he thinks there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may ISSUE SUMMONS INSTEAD

People v. Perez seditious remarks Criticisms against the branches of government within the range of liberty and speech unless the intention and the effect be seditious

NOTA BENE: > Distinction between the control of the court and the prosecutor > If the case has been filed in court, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE IS ADMONISHED not to entertain any petition for review. The court may ignore or deny any decision he would make and this would cause embarrassment to him. > The court acquires absolute control upon the filing of the case Case Doctrines Section 4- Constitution. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Gonzales v. COMELEC prolonged political campaigns freedom of expression not absolute; The speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint to the communication of views or subsequent punishment unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has the right to prevent.

C. Freedom of Expression and the electoral process

Sanidad v. COMELEC prohibition regarding certain forms of propaganda a valid exercise of police power of the state to prevent perversion and prostitution of electoral process

A. Prior Restraint

Adiong v. COMELEC using stickers to campaign ed

Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans The test of limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE that words are used in such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that a lawmaker has a right to prevent. Government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite listeners to overthrow it

ABS-CBN v. COMELEC exit polls ed

SWS v. COMELEC releasing surveys results before the election allowed

Chavez v. Gonzales Hello Garci Case Tests for restraint dangerous tendency doctrine, clear and present danger rule and balancing of interest test; aspects of freedom of the press freedom from prior restraint and freedom from subsequent punishment

D. Freedom of Expression and the Courts

B. Subsequent Punishment

IN RE: EMIL JURADO journalist and lawyer at the same time - Right to private reputation. Judges are commonly and rightly regarded as voluntarily subjecting themselves to norms of conduct which embody more stringent standards of honesty, integrity, and competence than are commonly required from private persons. Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and

deliberately published about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity. The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.

E. UNPROTECTED SPEECH LIBEL, OBSCENITY

PEOPLE V. GODOY - cited for contempt based on the latter s article in the newspaper - (1) There s a need to make a distinction between adverse criticism of the court's decision after the case is ended and "scandalizing the court itself." The latter is not criticism; it is personal and scurrilous abuse of a judge as such, in which case it shall be dealt with as a case of contempt. Contempt proceedings dismissed. Such comments may constitute a libel against the judge, but it cannot be treated as in contempt of the court's authority. (2) In case of a post-litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism of the court, its proceedings and its members, are allowed. However, there may be a contempt of court, even though the case has been terminated, if the publication is attended by either of these two circumstances:

BORJAL V. COURT OF APPEALS - Borjal published in his editorial column in the Philippine Star about certain anomalous activities of an organizer of a conference - (1) Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.

a. Where it tends to bring the court into disrespect or, in other words, to scandalize the court; or b. Where there is a clear and present danger that the administration of justice would be impeded. And this brings us to the familiar invocation of freedom of expression usually resorted to as a defense in contempt proceedings.

OCAMPO V. SUN STAR PUBLISHING - graft charges filed against the judge. - (1) Generally, every defamatory information is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following instances:

IN RE: RESOLUTION A.M. 98-7-02 SC - resolution prohibiting demonstrations within a radius of 200 meters from the boundary of any hall of Justice. - The Court, it would seem, has the power to promulgate rules concerning conduct of demonstrations in the vicinity of the courts to assure the people of an impartial and orderly administration of justice. It was anchored on Art. VIII Sec. 5 (5) RE: RADIO/TV COVERAGE OF ESTRADA TRIAL - Can the trial of Estrada in the Sandiganbayan or any other court be broadcasted in TV or radio? NO. An accused has a right to a public trial, but it is not synonymous with a publicized trial. Freedom of the press and the accused s protection from a possible prejudicial publicized trial must be taken into consideration. And unless there are safety nets to prevent this event, broadcast media cannot be allowed to publicize the trial.

a. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceeding which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. the subject articles are under this exemption.

Pita v. CA Pinoy Playboy - Miller test (3 Tests) (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

F. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION PRIMICIAS V. FUGOSO - public meeting at Plaza Miranda - (1) A statute requiring persons using the public streets for a parade or procession to procure a special license therefor from the local authorities is not an unconstitutional abridgement of the rights of assembly or a freedom of speech and press, where, as the statute is construed by the state courts, the licensing authorities are strictly limited, in them issuance of licenses, to a consideration, the time, place, and manner of the parade and procession, with a view to conserving the public convenience and of affording an opportunity to provide proper policing and are not invested with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license. (2) In the exercise of police power, the council may, in its discretion, regulate the exercise of such rights in a reasonable manner, but cannot suppress them, directly or indirectly, by attempting to commit the power of doing so to the mayor or any other officer. The discretion with which the council is vested is a legal discretion, to be exercised within the limits of the law, and not discretion to transcend it or to confer upon any city officer and arbitrary authority, making him in its exercise a petty tyrant.

must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Thus, while the court upheld the right of the students to free expression in these cases, disciplinary action by the school for "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - which materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others were not ruled out. (2) The school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. JACINTO V. COURT OF APPEALS teachers and mass actions - mass actions then staged. That given the return-to-work orders issued by the then DECS Secretary, they still refused to return to work, they were then suspended and later on dismissed from service. - Where public school teachers absent themselves without proper authority, from their schools during regular school days, in order to participate in mass protest, their absence ineluctably results in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they are responsible, and they may be penalized not for their exercise of their right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances but for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. SECTION 3 Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence- Philippines Constitution CASE DOCTRINES

NAVARRO V. VILLEGAS - Sunken Gardens as alternative to Plaza Miranda - The Mayor cannot be compelled to issue the permit. A permit should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their assembly at a public place of their choice, another place may be designated by the licensing authority if it be shown that a clear and present danger of a substantive evil if no change was made.

JBL REYES V. MAYOR BAGATSING - a peaceful march and rally from Luneta park to the gates of the US Embassy. - (1) The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. (2) If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. (3) Application for permit should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant but at another place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. (4) Decision of the licensing authority must be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity. MIRIAM COLLEGE V. COURT OF APPEALS Libog Article - (1) The right of the students to free speech in school premises is not absolute. The right to free speech

(1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this and the preceding section shall be inadmissible for anypurpose in any proceeding. A. Exclusionary Rule (Second paragraph of Section 3) People v. Marti package bound for Switzerland The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against act of private individuals. It is directed against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The constitutional against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by a private individual.

B. Waiver of Rights

Roxas v. Zuzuaregui contempt of the Supreme Court the letter ceased to be private when Roxas furnished the letter to the all the justices and not just to the one whom it is addressed

Veroy v. Layague search of rebels in a house Permission was granted by Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Where permission to enter a residence was given, it is illegal to search the rooms therein and seize firearms without as search warrant. Okabe v. Gutierrez estafa case An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore.. An application for bail SHALL NOT BE considered as a waiver of rights. A valid waiver, requisites. 1) rights must exist; 2) there must be clear and convincing proof that there was an actual intention to relinquish the right

C. Anti-Wire Tapping Act

Navarro v. CA police complaint gone bad where the exchange between two persons is not private, the tape recording is not prohibited

Salcedo-Ordonez v. CA annulment with damages husband is cheating on me case Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations not admissible

D. Privacy of Bank Accounts

Marquez v. Desierto secrecy of bank deposits exceptions: 1) depositor consents in writing; 2) subject of an impeachment case; 3) by court order in cases of bribery and dereliction by public officials, 4) deposit is subject of litigation; 5) unexplained wealth

E. Privacy of Communication