You are on page 1of 44



1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

O They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of government and without them no government can exist.

SimiIarities, Distinctions, and Limitation


O they are inherent in the State
O they are necessary and indispensable
O they are methods by which the State interferes with private rights
O they presuppose an equivalent compensation
O they are exercised primarily by the legislature


PoIice Power Eminent Domain Taxation
As to regulation regulates both liberty and
regulates property rights
regulates property
rights only
As to who may
only the government government and some
private entities
only the government
As to the property
destroyed because it is noxious
or intended for noxious
-taken for a public use or
-taken for a public
use or purpose
As to Compensation intangible altruistic feeling that
the person has contributed to
the general welfare
full and fair equivalent of
the property expropriated
protection and public
improvements for the
taxes paid


a) Bill of Rights


PoIice Power is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and

Justification of existence:

O Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law;
O Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must use his own property so as not to injure another


(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform)
d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts police power prevails over contract)
e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate

Who may exercise PoIice Power?

a) the Legislature inherent)
b) President by delegation)
c) administrative boards by delegation)
d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay by delegation)
e) Municipal governments / LGU's conferred by statute general welfare clause of RA 7160)

O Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no police power. (MMDA v. BeI-Air ViIIage Assoc.)

Tests (Limitations):

a) LawfuI subject interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of
police power
b) LawfuI means the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals

AdditionaI Iimitations (when exercised by deIegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:

O express grant by law e.g. RA 7160)
O within territorial limits for LGU's)
O must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta)
O for municipal ordinances -

1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy

O n Ermita-MaIate HoteI and MoteI Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of ManiIa, police power has been characterized as
the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers extending as it does "to all great public needs.

"[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of their business or a particular mode of earning a living
cannot prevent the exercise of police power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and
interest be affected by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the disadvantages which may
result from the exercise of that power.

Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees even to prohibitive levels, if public interest dictates so,
without any constitutional violations.

Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise of police power and the right to exact fees is may be
implied from that power to regulate. n setting the fees, municipal corporations are given wider discretion in this class of
licenses than for licenses issued to regular business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability of
imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful enterprises.

O n not v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of carabao under the assailed ordinance and their outright
confiscation and disposal without court hearing is a violation of due process hence it is an invalid exercise of police power.
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and is restrained by due process, which requires notice
and hearing
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process requirement
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:
No reasonable connection between means employed absolute ban on movement of carabeef) and purpose
sought to be achieved conservation of carabao for general welfare)
Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or opportunity to be heard in proper court


Eminent Domain is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed
property in order to devote the same to public use.

Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.

Who may Exercise?

1. The Congress inherent)
2. President
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations e.g. National Housing Authority)
5. Quasi-public corporations e.g. PLDT)

Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity

Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity
O public right
O arises from the laws of society and is
vested in the state or grantee, acting
under the right and power of the state
or benefit of the state
O private right vested in every individual with
which the right of state or state necessity has
nothing to do
O comes under the right of necessity, of self-
O arises under the laws of society or society itself
O cannot require the conversion of the property
taken to public use, nor is there any need for the
payment of just compensation

O The Regional Trial Court RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.

Requisites of Eminent Domain:

1. Necessity of exercise
2. Private property
3. Taking
4. Public use
5. Just compensation

1. Necessity of Exercise

O genuine necessity, and
O must be of public character
When exercised by legislature political question
When exercised by a delegate usticiable question
determine the: a) adequacy of compensation; b) necessity of taking; and c) public use character

. Private Property

O eneraI RuIe: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation
O Exceptions: money and chose in action personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the right to bring an action to recover
debt, money or thing)
O Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting under a general grant of authority
(City of Manila vs Chinese Community)

. Taking

Requisites #epublic vs Castellvi):

a) expropriator must enter a private property

b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
d) entry is for public use
e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property

O if taking is under police power, it is not compensable

Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in PoIice Power :

PoIice Power Eminent Domain
O the prejudice suffered by the individual
property owner is shared in common with
the rest of the community
O the individual suffers more than his aliquot
part of the damages, i.e. a special injury
above that sustained by the rest of the

O n AmigabIe v. Cuenca, where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner need not file a claim for just
compensation with the Commission of Audit; he may go directly to the court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the
government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.

O n City overnment v. Ericta, an ordinance of Quezon City, under the guise of exercising police power, prescribed that at
least 6% of the total area of memorial parks must be developed and set aside for the burial of paupers. The Court held that
such ordinance is not an exercise of police power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to satisfy the
Constitution, there must be compensation.

4. PubIic Use

PubIic use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including both direct or indirect benefit or advantage to
the public

O n Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution understand public use in a broad sense as meaning public
welfare. That includes development of tourism.

5. Just Compensation

Just compensation is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever
gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. t is not market value per se. (Epza v. DuIay)

O Where onIy part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential damages, if any + consequential benefits
must be deducted from the total compensation provided consequential benefits does not exceed consequential damages

Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time

O Form of Compensation: Money However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to
be made partly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary kind of expropriation).

O Transfer of TitIe: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.

O Reckoning point of market vaIue of property: either as of the date of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first

O EntitIement of interest:
eneral #ule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art. 2209, CC)
xception: when waived by not claiming the interest

O Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during which the owner did not enjoy
any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.

O Right of the Iandowner in case of non-payment:
eneral #ule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to demand payment
xception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the finality of judgment in
expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property

O n De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding against the property of petitioner was arbitrary and
cannot receive judicial approval. There was another area where the expansion of EDSA can be undertaken, which will cost
government less, affect lesser homeowners, etc.

O But in RepubIic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated. Apparently, BP 340, which called for the taking of
the property, was enacted after the 1
De Knecht case. De Knecht argued that there was already a law of the case, which
should not be disturbed.

Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is equally true that there is constitutional grant given to the
State to take private property upon payment of just compensation. "Such expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the
[State] not only by voluntary negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or by legislation.

The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own assessment of the circumstances that prevailed after the
decision as well as supervening events and reaching a conclusion as to the propriety of undertaking the appropriation of the
De Knecht property.

O n the case RepubIic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the reconnection of telephone lines of the Republic.
No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of
condemned property without loss of title or possession for public use subject to just compensation
Case highlights that even services may be subjected to eminent domain

O n City of ManiIa v. Chinese Community of ManiIa, the Court said that "[T]he very foundation of the right to exercise
eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character.

O n Epza v. DuIay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula for arriving at just compensation in expropriation
proceedings , dispense with the need to appoint commissioners to determine just compensation. The Court held that those
decrees are unconstitutional and void for they constitute "impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.

O n RepubIic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification should only have prospective effect. The Court agreed. Thus
under the "operative fact doctrine, the effect of the invalidated law was allowed to affect transactions completed before the
declaration of nullity.


Power of Taxation is a method by which contributions are exacted from persons and property for the support of government and for
all public needs.

O Obligation to pay taxes is a duty

Taxes vs Licenses

Tax License
O to raise revenues O for regulatory purpose only
O justified under police power
O amount of fees required is usually limited to the cost of regulation


O all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and tangible personal properties found
in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned by persons domiciled therein

Power to Tax IncIudes Power to Destroy

1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect ultimately prohibiting certain things or
enterprises inimical to public welfare

Power to Tax Does Not IncIude Power to Destroy

O where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues

Who May Exercise

1. Legislature / Congress inherent)
2. President by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 2), Art. V, Consti])
3. local legislative bodies conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])

Limitations of Taxation:

1. Due Process of Law
2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose

1. Due Process

O Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police power

O ProceduraI : due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law prescribing specific taxes on specific
articles may be enacted. However, where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the
taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of the

. EquaI Protection

O embodied in Sec. 28 1), Art. V, 1987 Constitution The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation.)

O Uniformity persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate

Requisites Tan vs Del Rosario):

a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class

O EquitabIe taxation based on the capacity to pay

O EquaIity in taxation tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property

O Progressive system of taxation the rate increases as the tax base increases

. PubIic Purpose

O whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare

O DoubIe Taxation / Direct DupIicate Taxation

when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for
the same purpose.

despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it results in a violation of the equal protection

O Tax Exemptions may either be:

Art. Vi, Sec. 28 3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually, directly and exclusively for religious,
charitable or educational purposes entitled to exemption

statutory- discretion of legislature


BiII of Rights set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on
the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

Significance of the BiII of Rights

Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a
person's life, liberty, and property which governmental power may not touch.

O Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.

CIassification of Rights

1. PoIiticaI Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or indirect participation in the
establishment or administration of the government;

2. CiviI Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for the purpose of securing them the
enjoyment of their means of happiness;

3. SociaI and Economic Rights; and,

4. Human Rights.

Section 1, Art. III. No person shaII be deprived of Iife, Iiberty, or property without due process of Iaw, nor shaII any person be
denied the equaI protection of the Iaws.
O no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of
particular cases

O responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice

O embodiment of sporting idea on fair play

O guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

Protection of Person

Covers Natural citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are
derived from and subject to control of legislature

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

O connotes deniaI of right to Iife, Iiberty or property
O not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.

O When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the action is valid.

1. Life

O t is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against physical harm. The right to life is the
right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of living.

. Liberty

(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)

2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude

. Property

O anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract

O all things within the commerce of man

O However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. f created by statue, it may be
abolished by the legislature at any time.

O Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will

Aspects of Due Process

1. Substantive Due Process
2. Procedural Due Process

O As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.

O As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the
enforcement and application of laws. t is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process - requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property


a) Lawful Subject
b) Lawful Means

ProceduraI Due Process

ProceduraI due process - is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of government.

1. JudiciaI Due Process


a) mpartial and Competent Court

b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property

c) Hearing

O not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough

O right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable part of due process

O the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing

O Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process:

abatement of nuisance per se

preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
statutory presumptions

(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco EspanoI FiIipino v. PaIanca)

. Administrative Due Process


a) Right to a hearing

b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented

c) Decision must have something to support itself

d) Evidence must be Substantial

e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to
the parties affected

f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and law of the

g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the
reason for the decision rendered

O n administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantiaI evidence, such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

O The Iaw is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men "of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its
meaning and differ as to its application. t is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid; and,
it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle.

O n Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process because the nature of the charges
against the petitioner is not uncertain and void merely because general terms are used or because it employed terms that
were not defined. The Anti-Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which it purports to punish, giving
the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively interpose a defense against on his behalf.

O A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception violates the right of marital privacy
which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

Although the Bill of Rights does not mention 'privacy' the Court ruled that that the right was to be found in the "penumbras"
of other constitutional protections. "The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is
protected from governmental intrusion.

O n Lochner v. New ork, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully
permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute allegedly violated mandates that no employee
shall contract or agree to work more than 10 hours per day.

ssue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.

Ruling: Yes. The statute is unconstitutional.

The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free contract between employer and employee by determining the
hours of labor in the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.

The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is a liberty protected by the 14

The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of
contracts in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society. n this instance, the
amendment cannot interfere.

The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the state's interference with rights to labor and contract.

octrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before
an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract
in relation to his own labor.

O Our cases include Court of ndustrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an administrative court which exercises judicial and
quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees. National Telecommunications
Company PHLCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC DBP vs. NLRC) and school tribunals
Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School
District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. t is a question of whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-
judicial function that makes it bound by the due process clause. Judicial function is synonymous to judicial power which is the
authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally enforceable and demandable or the
redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. t is a determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties
are with respect to a matter in controversy).

O n Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a
judicial or quasi-judicial function. These are:

1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof

2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

3) The decision must have something to support itself

4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion

5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected

6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate

7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.

Section 1, Art. III. No person shaII be deprived of Iife, Iiberty, or property without due process of Iaw, nor shaII any person be
denied the equaI protection of the Iaws.
O The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The equality it guarantees
is "legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before the law.

O embraced in the concept of due process

O embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility from the

Due Process CIause attacks arbitrariness in general

EquaI Protection CIause attacks unwarranted partiaIity or prejudice

Substantive EquaIity all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities

EquaIity in enforcement of the Iaw law be enforced and applied equally

Requisites of VaIid CIassification:

a) it must be based on substantial distinctions

b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law

c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists

d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class
both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed

O n De uzman v. ComeIec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the equal protection clause because it
singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or
municipality for more than four years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of election officers in order to
"ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of

O n Ormoc Sugar CentraI v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central by name. Ormos Sugar Central
is the only sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that such ordinance is not valid for it would be discriminatoory against
the Ormoc Sugar Central which alone comes under the ordinance.

Section , Art. III. The right of the peopIe to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonabIe
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shaII be invioIabIe, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shaII issue except upon probabIe cause to be determined personaIIy by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the compIainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particuIarIy describing the pIace to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
Section , Art. III deals with tangibles; embodies the castle" doctrine a man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against
official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own home.)

O This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law.
t does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
Section , Art. III. (1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shaII be invioIabIe except upon IawfuI order of the
court, or when pubIic safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by Iaw. () Any evidence obtained in vioIation of this
or the preceding section shaII be inadmissibIe for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section (1), Art. III deals with intangibles

Section (), Art. III ExcIusionary RuIe which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

ExcIusionary RuIe evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art., shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding Fruit of
Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (StonehiII v. Diokno)

O available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be required to open for examination by the
State in the exercise of police power or power of taxation

The right is personal (Stonehill vs iokno)

O eneraI RuIe: only a judge may issue a warrant.

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
violation of a law

VaIid WarrantIess Searches

[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]

1. searches incidentaI to IawfuI arrest rule 126, Rules of Court) for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been
used or constitute in the commission of an offense

1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest

. searches of moving vehicIes

O n Aniag v. ComeIec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was stopped and searched. The
motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching officers received any confidential
information about the car. The Court held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle
as there was no probable cause.

. searches of prohibited articIes in pIain view

1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent
4. there is no further search

4. enforcement of customs Iaw

5. consented searches

6. stop and frisk limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)

O n Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: "W)here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads
him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom
he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be
used to assault him.

O Stop-and-frisk ruIe serves a two-foId interest:

1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;

() the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (MaIacat)

7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry

8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitoriaI powers to enforce poIice reguIations

VaIid WarrantIess Arrest

1. in flagrante delicto
2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment

Requisites of a vaIid warrant

Arrest Warrant Search Warrant
1. ProbabIe Cause

must refer to one

1) specific offense
Such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably prudent man
to believe that an offense has been
committed and the person sought to be
arrested had committed it
Such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and
the obects sought in the connection of the
offense are in the place sought to be
2. PersonaI
determination of
probabIe cause by
the judge
The judge personally determines the
existence of probable cause; it is not
necessary that he should personally
examine the complainant and his
witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar)


1) personally evaluate the fiscal's

report, or

2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it and

require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses

PreIiminary inquiry task of the judge)
determination of probable cause for
the issuance of warrant of arrest

PreIiminary investigation proper
task of the prosecutor)
ascertainment whether the offender
should be held for trial or be released
The judge must personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers...
in writing and under oath...
the complainants and his witnesses...
on facts personally known to them...
and attach to the record their sworn
statements and affidavits.
(Silva vs Presiding Judge)

3. After
examination under
oath or affirmation
of the compIainant
and the witnesses
he may produce
Not merely routinary but must be
probing and exhaustive
Not merely routinary but must be probing
and exhaustive
4.ParticuIarity of
eneraI RuIe: it must contain the
name/s of the persons to be arrested

Exception: if there is some descriptio
personae which will enable the officer
to identify the accused
eneraI RuIe: when the description
therein is as specific as the circumstances
will ordinarily allow.

Exception: when no other more accurate
and detailed description could have been

O n VaImonte v. en. De ViIIa, the Court held that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the
facts of the case.

Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not constitute unreasonable searches. f the inspection
becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. n the latter
situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.

ProbabIe Cause facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a
cautious man to rely upon them.

O n Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine Times:... we found that the said
publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit does
not establish probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.

O n Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the basis of a broad statement of the
military that Burgos, Jr. is "in possession of printing equipment and other paraphernalia... used as means of committing the
offense of subversion. The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to establish probable cause. t is a mere conclusion
of law unsupported by particulars.

The Court also held that the search warrant description has the "sweeping tenor making the document a general warrant. The search
warrant particularly states:all printing equipment, typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...

t is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. t is
sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.

O n SoIiven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of "personally in the search and seizure clause. t stated that
in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause, what is required is personal determination and
not personal examination.

O n Lim v. FeIix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or
recommendation of a prosecutor that probable cause exists. The judge must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts
of stenographic notes if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.

O n StonehiII v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant
authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases: " Book of accounts, financial records, vouchers...and other documents
showing all business transactions....

The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and
cannot be availed by third parties.


Section 1, Art. III.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shaII have the right to be informed of his right to remain
siIent and to have competent and independent counseI preferabIy of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
of counseI, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counseI.
. No torture, force, vioIence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free wiII shaII be used against him.
Secret detention pIaces, soIitary, incommunicado, or other simiIar forms of detention are prohibited.
. Any confession or admission obtained in vioIation of this or Section 17 hereof shaII be inadmissibIe in evidence against
4. The Iaw shaII provide for penaI and civiI sanctions for vioIations of this Section as weII as compensation to the
rehabiIitation of victims of torture or simiIar practices, and their famiIies.

O called the Miranda Doctrine" Miranda vs Arizona)

Miranda Doctrine - prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain
silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney,
either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently.

Purpose of the Doctrine

n Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a criminaI defendant's priviIege against seIf-
incrimination from the pressures arising during custodiaI investigation by the poIice. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for
the practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that "the prosecution may not use
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use
of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine

1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;

2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;

3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and

4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.

CustodiaI investigation defined

O Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way.

O Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which
tend to elicit incriminating statements.

O Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected
to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.

ExtrajudiciaI confession is AdmissibIe when:

a) Voluntary
b) With assistance of counsel
c) n writing, and
d) Express

Rights Under CustodiaI Investigation

a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel

O Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and contemplates effective
communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed. (PeopIe v. Agustin)

b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him

c) To remain silent

d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice

e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one

f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him

g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited

h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as evidence exclusionary rule)

Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]

a) Right to remain silent
b) Right to Counsel

Rights That Cannot Be Waived

a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel

b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to counsel

O Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for postponement. He must be provided with
counsel de oficio.

O RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board of Claims under DOJ

O Res estae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk officer after the crime was
committed may be given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res

O n PeopIe v. aIit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived. The Constitution says; "These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. n localities where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the individual
to a place where there is one.

O Termination of rights under custodiaI investigation: When Charges are filed against the accused in such case, Sections
14 and 17 come into play).

O n utang v. PeopIe, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. "What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be
material. n fact, an accused may be validly compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or
replaced, or to move his body to enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running afould of the proscription against
testimonial compulsion.


Section 1, Art. III. AII persons, except those charged with offenses punishabIe by recIusion perpetua when evidence of guiIt
is strong, shaII, before conviction, be baiIabIe by sufficient sureties, or be reIeased on recognizance as may be provided by
Iaw. The right to baiI shaII not be impaired even when the priviIege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive baiI
shaII not be required.

BaiI is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance
before any court as may be required

Kinds of BaiI

a) Cash bond
b) Security bond

Who May Invoke?

A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed Rule 114, Rules of Court)

Who Are EntitIed?

a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Death, when evidence of guilt is strong

b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.

c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.

O n Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable bu sufficient sureties.

One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as in
the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a hospital communicated his submission to the jurisdiction of the

Other Rights in ReIation to BaiI

O The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.

O Excessive bail shall not be required.

Factors in Fixing Amount of BaiI

a) Ability to post bail

b) Nature of the offense

c) Penalty imposed by law

d) Character and reputation of the accused

e) Health of the accused

f) Strength of the evidence

g) Probability of appearing at the trial

h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds

i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested

j) f accused is under bond in other cases

ImpIicit Limitations on the Right to BaiI

a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law.

O n PeopIe v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas nevertheless agreed "to remain in legal custody during
the pendency of the trial of his criminal case. The Court held that he does not have the right to bail, because bu his act he
has waived his right.

b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and extradition proceedings.

a) Right to bail is not available in the military.

O n Comendador v. De ViIIa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail. t is because of the disciplinary
structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause great
havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those who are
equally situated.

b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.

O n US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal
proceedings, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He should apply for a bail in the court where
he will be tried.


Section 14, Art. III.
1. No person shaII be heId to answer for a criminaI offense without due process of Iaw.
. In aII criminaI prosecutions, the accused shaII be presumed innocent untiI the contrary is proved, and shaII enjoy the
right to be heard by himseIf and counseI, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartiaI, and pubIic triaI, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compuIsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behaIf. However, after arraignment, triaI may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duIy notified and his faiIure to appear is
The Rights of the Accused IncIude

1. Criminal due process;
2. Presumption of innocence;
3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence; and
8. trial in absentia

1. CriminaI Due Process

CriminaI process incIudes

a) nvestigation prior to the filing of charges
b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
c) Period of trial

Requirements of CriminaI Due Process

1. mpartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law;

2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and the applicable statutes example of
statutory right of the accused: right to Preliminary investigation)

O MistriaI may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely
making his defense or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.

O There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is impleaded for violation of such law.

O There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there is denial thereof.

. Presumption of Innocence

O Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution.

O Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of the defense

O The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the experience of human conduct. e.g unexplained
flight may lead to an inference of guilt, as "the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.)

O The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational connection between the fact proved and the
ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely
arbitrary mandate. Cooley

O No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a statement of any sort.

O n DumIao v. ComeIec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election, section 4 of BP Blg. 52 says that the filing of
charges for the commission of such crimes before civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima
facie evidence of such fact disqualification). The Court held that this provision violates the guarantee of presumption of
innocence. Although filing of charges is only prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the proximity of elections and
consequent risk of not having time to rebut the prima facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even
before trial.

Equipoise RuIe evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt
the scales in favor of the accused.

. Right to be Heard by HimseIf and CounseI

O ndispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life of the accused

O Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission
of a crime.
This is not subject to waiver.

O Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.

O f the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:

a) nform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment;

b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;

c) f the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de oficio must be appointed;

d) f the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give him a reasonable time to get one.

4. Nature and Cause of Accusation

Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation

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.

O The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling The real nature of the crime charged is determined from
the recital of facts in the information. t is not determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of
the provision of law allegedly violated.)

O f the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the
prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.

Void for Vagueness RuIe accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him and to due process as well, where the
statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished and hence, shall be avoided.

O n Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the 'oid for 'agueness Doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree
of certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.

5. The TriaI

Factors in Determining Whether There Is VioIation

a) Time expired from the filing of the information

b) Length of delay involved
c) Reasons for the delay
d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.

O Effect of dismissaI based on vioIation of this right: it amounts to an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double
jeopardy. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused

Remedy if the Right is VioIated

1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;

2) f he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.

Speedy triaI -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon him

ImpartiaI triaI the accused is entitled to the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge. t is an element of due process.

O PubIic triaI: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the accused. However, if the
evidence to be adduced is "offensive to decency or public morals, the public may be excluded.

O The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of
the accused or if failed to object thereto.

O The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to promulgation of sentence.

O eneraI RuIe: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up. However, the court can still
compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes.

Exception: f the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the person charged with the offense
and named in the information, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which he is known, the witness is to be
understood as referring to him.

O Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been arraigned.

O There is also Promulgation in Absentia

O While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment, the absence of his counsel during such
promulgation does not affect its validity

O The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails
to appear at his trial.

O A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of
the nature and function of a bail bond

6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face

Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face

1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness

2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness

PrincipaI Exceptions to this Right

1) The admissibility of "dying declarations
2) Trial in absentia under Section 142)
O With respect to child testimony

O Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for being hearsay.

O f a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the
record, provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered on cross.

O The right to confrontation may be waived.

7. CompuIsory Process

O The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of
compelling the attendance of witness and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense.

O Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court.

O There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for conditional examination, provided the expected
testimony is material of any witness under circumstances that would make him unavailable from attending the trial.

8. TriaI in Absentia

TriaI in Absentia May OnIy Be AIIowed If the FoIIowing Requisites Are Met:

1) the accused has been validly arraigned;

2) Accused has already been arraigned;

3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and

4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 15, Art. III. The priviIege of the writ of habeas corpus shaII not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebeIIion,
when the pubIic safety requires it.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is a written order issued by a court, directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the
body of the prisoner at a designated time and place with the day and cause of his caption and detention.

PriviIege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus the right to have an immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical

The President may suspend the priviIege:

1) in cases of invasion or rebellion
2) when public safety requires it.

O Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re:

O The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention

O To secure the detainee's release
O The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be acted upon immediately

When avaiIabIe enumeration not exclusive)

restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint

may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:

1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of the person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as to the excess.

May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto

When moral restraint is exerted Caunca vs Salazar)

Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was subsequently meted out to another person
convicted of the same offense. Gumabon vs Director of Prisons)

Unlawful denial of bail

When not avaiIabIe enumeration not exclusive)

the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to
do so

desaparecidos disappeared persons) persons could not be found; remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human

Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt

Who may suspend the priviIege
The President

rounds for Suspension of the priviIege

1. invasion or rebellion

2. when public safety requires it

Section 18, Art. VII. The President shaII be the Commander-in-Chief of aII armed forces of the PhiIippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may caII out such armed forces to prevent or suppress IawIess vioIence, invasion or rebeIIion. In case
of invasion or rebeIIion, when the pubIic safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
priviIege of the writ of habeas corpus or pIace the PhiIippines or any part thereof under martiaI Iaw. Within forty-eight hours
from the procIamation of martiaI Iaw or the suspension of the priviIege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shaII
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointIy, by a vote of at Ieast a majority of aII its
Members in reguIar or speciaI session, may revoke such procIamation or suspension, which revocation shaII not be set aside
by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such procIamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebeIIion shaII persist and pubIic safety requires
The Congress, if not in session, shaII, within twenty-four hours foIIowing such procIamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its ruIes without need of a caII.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding fiIed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factuaI basis of the
procIamation of martiaI Iaw or the suspension of the priviIege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promuIgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its fiIing.
A state of martiaI Iaw does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor suppIant the functioning of the civiI courts or
IegisIative assembIies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on miIitary courts and agencies over civiIians where civiI
courts are abIe to function, nor automaticaIIy suspend the priviIege of the writ.
The suspension of the priviIege of the writ shaII appIy onIy to persons judiciaIIy charged for rebeIIion or offenses inherent in
or directIy connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the priviIege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shaII be judiciaIIy charged within
three days, otherwise he shaII be reIeased.

Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs arcia): SC has the power to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ. t is written in Article V, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.


A.M. No. 07-9-1-SC
(5 September 007)
SECTION 1. !etition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
SEC. . o May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or
relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing
of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the order established
SEC. . ere to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme
Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any
justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or
omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
SEC. 4. o Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the
petition. The court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of !etition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed
in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating
authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the
identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
6. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. ssuance of te rit. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ
if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice
or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than seven 7) days from the date
of its issuance.
SEC. 7. !enalty for #efusing to ssue or Serve te rit. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other
disciplinary actions.
SEC. 8. ow te rit is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the
court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. n case the writ cannot be served personally on the
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
SEC. 9. #eturn; Contents. Within seventy-two 72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return
together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and
security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the
person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the
aggrieved party; and
4. f the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions that have been or will still be
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition which
may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that
may have brought about the death or disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not !leaded Deemed aived. All defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
SEC. 11. !roibited !leadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. ntervention;
10. Memorandum;
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 1. ffect of Failure to File #eturn. n case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear
the petition ex parte.
SEC. 1. Summary earing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a
preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.
SEC. 14. nterim #eliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the
following reliefs:
a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or
private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. f the petitioner is an organization, association or institution
referred to in Section 3c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or
the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court,
justice or judge.
b) nspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. t shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
f the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or
judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be
threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date, time, place and
manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order
shall expire five 5) days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, in which case the
court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the parties.
d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the
Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private
institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. vailability of nterim #eliefs to #espondent. Upon verified motion of the respondent and after due hearing, the court,
justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order under paragraphs b) and c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge
of the defenses of the respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return,
or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may
be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. urden of !roof and Standard of Diligence #equired. The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade
responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. udgment. The court shall render judgment within ten 10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. f the
allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be
proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
SEC. 19. ppeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five 5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
SEC. 0. rciving and #evival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it
cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order
their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after
the lapse of two 2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later
than the first week of January of every year.
SEC. 1. nstitution of Separate ctions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. . ffect of Filing of a Criminal ction. When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be
filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo.
SEC. . Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated
with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 4. Substantive #igts. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights recognized and protected by the
SEC. 5. Suppletory pplication of te #ules of Court. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent
with this Rule.
SEC. 6. pplicability to !ending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts.
SEC. 7. ffectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its publication in three 3) newspapers of general


Section 16, Art. III. AII persons shaII have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before aII judiciaI, quasi-judiciaI, or
administrative bodies.

Speedy TriaI vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases

Speedy triaI Speedy disposition of cases

Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases All phases)
Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings

O Periods for decision for courts Sec. 15, Art. V)

O SC: 24 months from submission
O All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
O All other lower courts: 3 months

Periods for decision for ConstitutionaI Commissions Sec 7, Art. X-A)

60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution

Factors considered in determining whether the right is vioIated

1. Length of delay
2. Reason of delay
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
4. Prejudice caused by delay

Remedy in case there has been unreasonabIe deIay in resoIution of a case:
Dismissal through mandamus


Section 17, Art. III. No person shaII be compeIIed to be a witness against himseIf.
Based on:
1. Humanitarian reasons it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the
suspect testimony that may convict him;

2. PracticaI reasons a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection

AppIicabIe to:

O Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations

TransactionaI Immunity Statute testimony of any person or whose possession of documents or other evidence necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense to which such
compelled testimony relates.

Use and Fruit Immunity Statute prohibits the use of the witness' compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.

May be CIaimed by:

1. Accused at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate
2. Witness only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the
nature or effect of the question to be put to him

He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:

a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to incriminate him or
subject him to civil liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute

O Only natural persons can invoke this right. 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.


1) Testimonial Compulsion

O n Villaflor v. Summers, since the "kernel of the privilege was the prohibition of "testimonial compulsion, the Court was willing
to compel a pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy. Being purely a
mechanical act, it is not a violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of accounts are to be examined in the exercise of
police power and power of taxation.

O 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.

O 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. Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against self-
incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for

O The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession which might tend to incriminate him.
However, a third person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it.

Right May be Waived:

a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVDED the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.
Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shaII be detained soIeIy by reason of his poIiticaI beIiefs and aspirations.


Section 18 (), Art. III. No invoIuntary servitude in any form shaII exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shaII have been duIy convicted.

InvoIuntary Servitude the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for
another, whether he is paid or not.

InvoIuntary Servitude IncIudes

1) SIavery civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another;

2) Peonage a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in
liquidation of some debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his will

eneraI RuIe
No involuntary service in any form shall exist.


1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted Sec. 18, Art. )

2. PersonaI miIitary or civiI service in the interest of national defense Sec. 4, Art. )

3. NavaI enIistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult
for the owners to recruit new hands to continue the voyage Robertson vs Baldwin)

4. !osse comitatus in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law, the authorities might command all male
inhabitants of a certain age to assist them US vs Pompeya)

5. Return to work order in industries affected with pubIic interest Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)

6. !atria !otestas unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power and to
observe respect and reverence to them always Art. 311, Civil Code)

US vs An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town may be called upon to
Pompeya render assistance for the protection of the public and the preservation of peace and good
order is constitutional. t was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state and
does not violate the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Pollock vs
No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service,
and no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal
sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor.


Section 19, Art. III.
1. Excessive fines shaII not be imposed, nor crueI, degrading or inhuman punishment infIicted. Neither shaII death penaIty be
imposed, unIess, for compeIIing reasons invoIving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penaIty
aIready imposed shaII be reduced to recIusion perpetua.
. The empIoyment of physicaI, psychoIogicaI, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penaI faciIities under subhuman conditions shaII be deaIt with by Iaw.

When is a penaIty crueI, degrading and inhuman"?

1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Ex. Being drawn and quartered.

2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex. Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout

Standards Used
1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings.

2) t must not be applied arbitrarily.

3) t must not be unacceptable to contemporary society

4) t must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment would.

Excessive Fine

O A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the offense.

Note: Fr. 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, degrading or inhuman.

Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.


Section 0, Art. III. No person shaII be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poII tax.
For humanitarian reasons. an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of
purely private debts because of their misfortune of being poor

Debt - any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting in any liability to pay in money.

Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt

O f an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex
delicto and not ex contractu.

A FRAUDULENT debt may resuIt in the imprisonment of the debtor if:

1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and

2. The accused has been duly convicted.


General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.
Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax

PoII tax - a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation.

O A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its non-payment maybe validly punished with


Section 1, Art. III. No person shaII be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a Iaw
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittaI under either shaII constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

DoubIe jeopardy when a person was charged with an offense and the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.

Requisites of DoubIe Jeopardy

1. valid complaint or information
2. filed before a competent court
3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Two () Kinds of DoubIe Jeopardy

1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense 1
sentence of Section 21)

2) When a Iaw and an ordinance punish the same act 2
sentence of Sec. 21)

Same Offense

Requisites for a vaIid defense of doubIe jeopardy:

1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1

a) A person is charged

b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction

c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction

d) After the person is arraigned

e) Such person enters a valid plea.

When does jeopardy NOT attach:
a) f information does not charge any offense

b) f, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete self-defense, and the court thereafter acquits him without
entering a new plea of not guilty for accused.

c) f the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC.

d) f a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.

When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (

1) Acquittal
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
4) Dismissal on the merits.

ExampIes of termination of jeopardy:
a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts to an acquittal.

b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits.

c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused.

d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an acquittal.

When can the PROSECUTION appeaI from an order of dismissaI:
a) f dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: f motion is based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a
demurrer to evidence.

b) f dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits

c) f the question to be passed upon is purely legal.

d) f the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.

e) f the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.

What are considered to be the SAME OFFENSE":

a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases.

b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense.

c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.

O Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one
will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply.

Same Act

O Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same. For there to be double
jeopardy, it is not necessary that the offense be the same.

Supervening Facts

1) Under the Rules of 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:

a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission constituting the former

b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former

c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party.

2) Under 1)b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution's
incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event.

Effect of appeaI by the accused
O f the accused appeals his conviction, he WAVES his right to plead double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review
by the appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.

O n Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial.
Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence, reinstatement did not violate the right against double


Section , Art. III. No ex post facto Iaw or biII of attainder shaII be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws

1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes
such action.

2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.

3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it
was committed.

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.

5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which,
when done, was lawful.

(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, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay ViIIegas Kami)

Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law

a) Must refer to criminal matters
b) Prejudicial to the accused
c) Retroactive in application

O n Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249
is not a penal law.... The contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is incorrect because "the right to
appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to matters of
procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of ex post facto law.

O n CaIder v. BuII, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law.
Exception: Beazell v. Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the

O n Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused
appealed. On March 16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed authorizing suspension of public officers against whom an information
may be pending at any stage. On July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 24 of
the Revised Penal Code that suspension of an officer during trial shall not be considered a penalty. The suspension in the
case is merely a preventive and not a penal measure which therefore does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.

Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. f the punishment be less than death, the act is
termed a bill of pains and penalties. (Cummings v. Missouri)

All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)

EIements of BiII of Attainder

1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.


Section (1), Art. III. The privacy of communication and correspondence shaII be invioIabIe except upon IawfuI order of the
court, or when pubIic safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by Iaw.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered

1. letters
2. messages
3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes

Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be AIIowed

1. Upon lawful order of the court, or

2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

O When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based upon a government official's assessment that public
safety and order demand such intrusion.

PubIic Order and Safety the security of human lives, liberty, and property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and

O RA No. 400 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties for specific violations of private communication. Under
Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized taps, under specific conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war
and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.


O n OpIe v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the government has the burden of proof to show that a
statute AO no. 308 in this case) is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn.

"n no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. t merely requires that
the law be narrowly focused. ntrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.

O n Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which
the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb.

a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but the Court has recognized that such right does
exist in the Constitution. The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution,
thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain "fundamental rights
are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state
b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
But a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way and for whatever reason she
alone chooses is NOT absolute. While recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that some state
regulation in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding
health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.


Writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

O t is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC full text), which was approved by the Supreme
Court on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

ConstitutionaI Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. PromuIgate ruIes concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutionaI rights, pIeading, practice,
and procedure in aII courts, the admission to the practice of Iaw, the integrated bar, and IegaI assistance to the under-
priviIeged. Such ruIes shaII provide a simpIified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shaII be
uniform for aII courts of the same grade, and shaII not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. RuIes of procedure of
speciaI courts and quasi-judiciaI bodies shaII remain effective unIess disapproved by the Supreme Court.

O The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three 3) newspapers of general circulation.

Who may fiIe a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?

O eneraI ruIe: The aggrieved party.

O Exceptions: n cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:

1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and parents; or

2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Where can the petition be fiIed?

1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.

2) Supreme Court;

3) Court of Appeals; or

4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices.

O No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and
acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing
of the petition.

The verified written petition shaII aIIege the foIIowing:

a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved

c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;

d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of
the data or information, if known;

e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information
or files kept by the respondent. n case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of;

f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

When is the writ of habeas data issued?

Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue.
The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three 3) days from its issuance; or, in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to
serve it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than ten 10) work days
from the date of its issuance.

O A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be
punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

O The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a
copy on which to make a return of service. n case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on
substituted service shall apply.

O The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits within five 5) work days from service of the
writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons.

Contents of Return

a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of
information of media and others;

b) n case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information subject of the petition:

i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;

ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or information; and

iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and

c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.

O When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the
petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.

O nstead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers when the respondent invokes the defense that the
release of the data or information in question shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the data or
information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.

O The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.

O Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officer as may be designated by the court, justice or
judge within five 5) work days.

O When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall
be available by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of habeas data.

O When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall
be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

O The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into PhiIippine Justice System compIemented severaI writs used in the
PhiIippines. These writs which protect the rights of the individuaI against the state are as foIIows:

O The Writ of Habeas Corpus - a writ ordering a person who detained another to produce the body and bring it
before a judge or court. Its purpose is to determine whether the detention is IawfuI or not;

O The Writ of Mandamus - a writ ordering a governmentaI agency to perform a ministeriaI function;

O The Writ of Prohibition - a writ ordering a person to prohibit the commission of an iIIegaI act;

O The Writ of Certiorari - a writ ordering a person to correct an erroneous act committed with grave abuse of
discretion; and

O The Writ of Amparo - a writ designed to protect the most basic right of a human being. These are the right to
Iife, Iiberty and security guaranteed by the Constitution.


Section 7, Art. III. The right of the peopIe to information on matters of pubIic concern shaII be recognized. Access to officiaI
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to officiaI acts, transactions, or decisions, as weII as to government
research data used as basis for poIicy deveIopment, shaII be afforded the citizen, subject to such Iimitations as may be
provided by Iaw.
O the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his government so he can express his views thereon
knowledgeably and intelligently.

Rights uaranteed

1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and

2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.

O These are political rights that are available to citizens only Bernas, Philippine Constitution, p. 85).

Limitations: "As may be provided by law

Valmonte v
The people have a right to access official records but they can't compel custodians
of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like, such not being
based on a demandable legal right.

Then right to privacy belongs to the individual and must be invoked by the individual.
A public agency like the GSS cannot invoke the right to privacy.
Baldoza v
Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate
the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy records in his
office, may exercise their rights.
Legaspi v Civil
Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of
public concern.
What matters constitute "public concern should be determined by the court on a
case to case basis.
Chavez v PCGG
Public concern def.) writings coming into the hands of public officers in
connection with their official functions
ll-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.
Privileged communication: 1) national security, 2) trade secrets, 3) criminal
matters pending in court,
Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal njection Manual inaccessible to the convict was


Freedom of Speech - "at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all liberty. Wendell Philips)

O Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the discussion of matters affecting the public interest.
Purely private interest matters do not come within the guaranty invasion of privacy is not sanctioned by the Constitution).
O covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view. One of the functions of this freedom is "to invite
dispute US Supreme Court; " may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire)
O The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. This freedom was meant not only to protect the minority who want to talk but
also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)


The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

Modes of Expression

a) Oral and written language
b) Symbolisms e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)

EIements of Freedom of Expression

1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship

2) Freedom from subsequent punishment

Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship

Section 4, Art. III. No Iaw shaII be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
peopIe peaceabIy to assembIe and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the government. Only those ideas
acceptable to it are allowed to be disseminated.

O Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually applying his own subjective standards in determining the
good and the not. Such is anathema in a free society.

O n New ork Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of "prior restraint is not absolute, although any system of
prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.

O n Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of "prior restraint is enumerated by the Court, thus: "When a nation is
at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort .... No one would question but that
government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of sailing dates of transports or the
number or location of troops.... The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence
and the overthrow by force of orderly government.

O n SWS v. ComeIec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
published fifteen 15) days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published seven days before
an election. The provision is challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as prior restraint, the rule
is presumed to be invalid. The power of the Comelec over media franchises is limited to ensuring "equal opportunity, time,
space and the right to reply as well as to reasonable rates of charges for the use of media facilities for "public information and
forums among candidates. Here the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule pass the
O'Brien test for content related regulation because 1) it suppresses one type of expression while allowing other types such as
editorials, etc. and 2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government interest because the interest can be
protected by narrower restriction such as subsequent punishment.

O n Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada TriaI, the Court held that the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the
weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and
the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very
life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just
and dispassionate judgment...

O The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of "core speech, i.e., speech which
communicates political, social or religious ideas. Commercial speech, however, does not.

Grosjean vs
American Press Co.
There need not be total suppression; even restriction of circulation constitutes
Burgos vs Chief of
the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of Metropolitan Mail and We
Forum by military authorities, resulting in the discontinuance of publication of the
newspapers, was held to be prior restraint
Mutuc vs
the COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped jingles in the mobile units used
in the campaign was held to be unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of
Sanidad vs
the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or
newspaper columnists from commenting on the issues involved in the scheduled
plebiscite on the organic law creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression
Gonzales vs
the Court upheld the validity of the law which prohibited, except during the
prescribed election period, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office.
JUSTFCATON: the inordinate preoccupation of the people with politics tended
toward the neglect of the other serious needs of the nation and the pollution of its
glesia ni Cristo vs
The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television BRMPT) has the
authority to review the petitioner's television program.
However, the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion when it gave an "X-
rating to the TV program on the ground of "attacks against another religion. Such
a classification can be justified only if there is a showing that the tv program would
create a clear and present danger of an evil which the State ought to prevent.
Primicias vs
The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the
use of public places for the purpose indicated.
National Press Club
the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11b), RA 6646, which prohibited
any person making use of the media to sell or to give free of charge print space or
air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This
was held to be within the power of the COMELEC to supervise the enjoyment or
utilization of franchises for the operation of media of communication and
information, for the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space, and
the "right to reply, as well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use
of such media facilities.
Osmea vs
SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate exercise of police power. The
regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech, as any restriction on freedom
of expression occasioned thereby is only incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PP vs COMELEC, because in the
latter, SC simply said that COMELEC cannot procure print space without paying
just compensation.
Adiong vs
COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting of decals, and stickers in mobile
units like cars and other moving vehicles was declared unconstitutional for
infringmenet of freedom of expression.
Besides, the constitutional objective of giving the rich and poor candidates' equal
opportunity to inform the electorate is not violated by the posting of decals and
stickers on cars and other vehicles.
"Overbreadth doctrine = prohibits the government from achieving its purpose by
means that weep unnecessarily broadly, reaching constitutionally protected as
well as unprotected activity; the government has gone too far; its legitimate
interest can be satisfied without reaching so broadly into the area of protected
Gonzales vs
petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as "for adults only. the
petition was dismissed because the Board did not commit grave abuse of

Freedom From Subsequent Punishment

Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shaII be detained soIeIy by reason of his poIiticaI beIiefs and aspirations.

O Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that he might be held to account for his speech, or that
he might be provoking the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.

O Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated freedom of expression does not cover ideas offensive to public

Right of students to free speech in schooI premises not absoIute

General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he has written

Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others, the school has
the right to discipline its students in such a case, it may expel or suspend the student)

Tests of vaIid governmentaI interference
(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him) :

1. Clear and present danger rule

2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
3. Balance of interest test

1. CIear and Present Danger RuIe when words are used in such circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present
danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v.
United States)

CIear causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance

Present time element; imminent and immediate danger the danger must not only be probable but also inevitable). (onzaIes v.

O n ABS-CBN v. ComeIec, the Comelec banned "exit polls in the exercise of its authority to regulate the holders of media
franchises during the lection period. t contends that "an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering the
randomness of selecting interviewees.... However, the Court said that exit polls constitute an essential part of the freedoms of
speech and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of promoting clean, honest, orderly and
credible elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely

Terminiello vs City of Chicago O speech inside an auditorium with 800 persons)
O speech is often provocative and challenging. hence,
"fighting words are not sufficient to convict a person
absent a clear and present danger of a serious substantive
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not
absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose
O the condition of Manila at that time did not justify the
mayor's fears. there was no clear and present danger.
O decided in 1947
Navarro vs Villegas compare with Primicias case)
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of refusing to issue a
permit enabling students to hold a public rally. Mayor feared
the rally would result to public disorder.
- decided in 1970
Reyes vs Bagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was invalid as there
was no showing of the probability of a clear and present
danger of an evil that might arise as a result of the meeting.
The burden of proving such eventually rests on the Mayor.

. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine - if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the right to
prevent.Cabansag v. Fernandez)

O Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. f believed, it is acted on unless some other belief
outweighs it, or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth.

Bayan vs Executive Secretary Ermita f) the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy is null and
void. Respondents are enjoined from using it and to strictly
observe the requirements of maximum tolerance.
Cabansag vs Fernandez t is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force
or violence be advocated. t is sufficient that such acts be
advocated in general terms.
A mere tendency toward the evil was enough.
People vs Perez Accused declared: "The Filipinos like myself must use bolos for
cutting off Governor-General) Wood's head for having
recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our
He was sentenced to jail.

. BaIance of Interest Test when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an
indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands
the greater protection under the circumstances presented. (American Communications Association v. Douds)

liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved in the light of
the peculiar circumstances
obtaining in each particular case

O n Mutuc v. ComeIec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all the more the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is
the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.

When faced with border line situations where freedom of expression) to speak & freedom to know to information) are invoked against
vs.) maintaining free and clean elections- the police, local officials and COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.

For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State's power to regulate are NOT ANTAGONSTC.

There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly

We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if:
O t is too general in its terms
O Not limited in time and scope in its application
O t if restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or one's opinion of his or her qualifications,
O f it cuts off the flow of media reporting
O f the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned objective.

The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to
agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the
expression becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else.

O The generaI ruIe for a speech to be considered libelous or defamatory is:

Libel = falsity + actual malice uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard)

Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is a public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered
against them and not be considered libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked for it "they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public
eye and therefore should not be thin-skinned); 2) it's a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures have the opportunity and
resources to rebut whatever is said against them. Policarpio vs Manila Times); New ork Times vs SuIIivan)

O n New ork Times v. SuIIivan, The New York Times is protected under the freedom of speech in publishing paid
advertisement, no matter if it contained erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was not "commercial in the sense that it
communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought a financial support
on behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact that
newspapers and books are sold.

Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just because they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise,
newspapers will be discouraged from carrying "editorial advertisements and so might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation
of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities.

On errors: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this truer than that of the
press. Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.

Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence
diminishes their official reputations. Presence of clear and present danger of substantive evil must be proved. Actual Malice needs to be
proved if a public official wants to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct. "Even a false statement
may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about the clearer perception and livelier impression of
truth, produced by its collision with error.

O n Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as "For Adults Only by the MTRCB and was suggested to
have certain portions cut/ deleted.

Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.

The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be
censored, is the clear and present danger test.

AssembIy and Petition

O The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or
authorization from the government authorities. However, the right must be exercised in such a way that it will not prejudice the
public welfare. De Ia Cruz v. Court of AppeaIs)

O f assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such place, and not for the assembly itself, may be validly
required. Power of local officials is merely for regulation and not for prohibition. (Primicias v. Fugoso)

O Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held in: a private place; the campus of a government-owned or
operated educational institution; and freedom park. (B.P. BIg. 880 - The PubIic AssembIy Act of 1985')

O n JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26,
1983 2-5pm from Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and was denied by the Mayor due to Vienna Convention Ordinance and
fear of subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators.

Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail over Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist none proven
because 500m not measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
speech and assembly- only clear and present danger of substantive evil.

Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Tanada vs
SC sustained the petitioner's motion compelling the mayor of Manila to issue a
permit to hold a rally, but changed the meeting place to Ugarte Field, a private
Malabanan vs
several students were suspended for 1 year for conducting demonstration in the
premises of a university outside the area permitted by the school authorities)
SC emphasized that the students did not shed their constitutional rights to free
speech at the schoolhouse gate, and permitted the students to re-enroll and finish
their studies.
Villar vs TP several students were barred from re-enrollment for participating in
while the Court upheld the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning,
which includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what
circumstances failing grades suffice for expulsion of students, it was held that this
right cannot be utilized to discriminate against those who exercise their
constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs PSBA that enrolment of a student is a
semester-to-semester contract and the school may not be compelled to renew the
contract) upholding the primacy of freedom of expression, because the students
do not shed theur constitutionally protected rights at the school gate.
PBM Employees
Assoc vs PBM
right to free assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.

Tests of a IawfuI assembIy

(1) Purpose Test

O ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held, regardless of the auspices under which it is

() Auspices Test

O Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of the Communist Party from holding any kind of
meeting, revoking all permits previously granted by him on the ground that the party had been found by the fiscal's
office) to be an illegal association.

O n PeopIe v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan,
who charged them with libel.

Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted,

Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. And these people did so in proper
channels without undue publicity, believing they were right.

Right of Association

Section 8, Art. III. The right of the peopIe, incIuding those empIoyed in the pubIic and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to Iaw shaII not be abridged.

The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the organization can be used as a vehicle for the
expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare.

SSS Employees
Assoc vs CA
right to organize does not carry with it right to strike
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union

Occena vs
right of association was not violated where political parties were prohibited from
participating in the barangay elections to insure the non-partisanship of the
n re Edillon Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. ntegration
does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a


US vs Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was charged of having offered for sale
pictures of half-clad members of non-Christian tribes, holding that
he had only presented them in their native attire
People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude paintings and pictures,
notwithstanding his claim that he had done so in the interest of art.
SC, noting that he has charged admission fees to the exhibition,
held that his purpose was commercial, not merely artistic.
Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination of what is obscene is a judicial
Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
O whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest
O whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law
O whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political or scientific value

Justice Douglas, dissent: do not think we, the judges, were ever
given the constitutional power to make definitions of obscenity.
Obscenity is a hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the community in which the material
is being tested.

O n Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect minors from obscenity on the internet.

O Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional.

O Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.

The internet is not an "invasive medium because it requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely
turning a dial tv or radio).

There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material through email, mail exploders,
newsgroups or chat rooms.

The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by
the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message.

The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for being "indecent or "patently offensive the remaining content even if not
indecent cannot be viewed anymore. mposition of requirements adult identification number or credit card) would bar adults who do not
have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material. t burdens communication among adults.

The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based blanket restriction on speech, and as such, cannot be properly
analyzed as a form of time, place and manner regulation.

O The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had been limited to material displayed only on the world
wide web. Chat and email were not included. The classification of content was limited as "harmful to minors using the Miller V
California Test. So, it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Notes: the Court's Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher's responsibility to abide by that community's standards.

The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying community standards in the various federal judicial
districts into which they transmit the materials does not render a federal statute unconstitutional.

- Criticism of Official Conduct

Lagunzad vs Sotto Vda. de
the Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of the
movie "Moises Padilla Story, because it contained fictionalized
Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to privacy.
Ayer Productions vs Judge
the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of expression over
Enrile's "right to privacy, because Enrile was a public figure and a
public figure's right to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie "Four Days of Revolution sabi ni Cruz)
/ "A Dangerous Life sabi ni Nachura) / "The Four Day Revolution
sabi sa case) would not be historically faithful without including
therein the participation of Enrile in the EDSA revolution.
US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official conduct to a "scalpel that relieves
the abscesses of officialdom
People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or
influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or
proceeding constitutes criminal contempt which is summarily
punishable by the courts.
n re Jurado a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court
and constitutes a clear and present danger to the administration of
justice is not protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is
punishable by contempt.
t is not necessary that publication actually obstructs the
administration of justice, it is enough that it tends to do so.
n re Sotto a senator was punished for contempt for having attacked a decision
of SC which he called incompetent and narrow-minded, and
announcing that he would file a bill for its reorganization
n re Tulfo Tulfo's "Sangkatutak na Bobo column was held contumacious.
Freedom of the press is subordinate to the decision, authority and
integrity of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice.
n re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended from the practice of
law for wrting individual letters to members of the SC division that
decided a case against his client, arrogantly questioning their
Zaldivar vs Sandiganbayan a member of the Bar who imputed charges of improper influence,
corruption and other misdeeds to members of the Supreme Court
was suspended from the practice of law as "neither the right of free
speech nor the right to engage in political activities can be so
construed or extended as to permit any such liberties to a member
of the bar.


Section 5, Art. III. No Iaw shaII be made respecting an estabIishment of reIigion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
free exercise and enjoyment of reIigious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shaII forever be
aIIowed. No reIigious test shaII be required for the exercise of civiI or poIiticaI rights.
ReIigion defined

O "any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and philosophy defined by Cruz)

O n AgIipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as "a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.

Two uarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution

1) Non-establishment clause

2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship

1. Non-estabIishment CIause

O reinforces Sec. 6, Art. on the separation of church and State

O other provisions which support this: Sec 25), Art. X-C [a religious sect or denomination cannot be registered as a political
party], Sec 52), Art. V [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 2), Art. V [prohibition against the
use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 3), Art. V
[exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 42), Art XV
[citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec 292), Art V
[appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage
or leprosarium]

Scope: The State

a) cannot set up a church;

b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over another;

c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will; nor

d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.


O to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and

O to avoid encroachment by one against the other.

O A union of Church and State wouId either:
tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength

O separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility

O The Government is neutral. t protects all, but prefers none and disparages none.

O Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes right not to worship

Two vaIues sought to be protected by the non-estabIishment cIause:

1) VoIuntarism the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members because
of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit
without benefit of official patronage.

2) InsuIation of the poIiticaI process from interfaith dissension voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process
is insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated politics.

Engel vs Vitale

recitation by students in public schools in New York of a prayer composed by
the Board of Regents was unconstitutional
Everson vs Board of
US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free transportation for all
schoolchildren without discrimination, including those attending parochial
Board of Education vs
US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend
textbooks free of charge to all students from grades 7-12, including those
attending private schools
n Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student and parents, not to the
church-related school
Adong vs Cheong Seng
in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of all religions, the
State recognizes the validity of marriages performed in conformity with the
rites of Mohammedan religion
Rubi vs Provincial Board the expression "non-Christian in "non-Christian tribes was not meant to
discriminate. t refers to degree of civilization, not to the religious belief.
slamic Da'wah Council
of the Philippines vs
Office of Exec. Sec.
by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications, the State has, in
effect, forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and
Sunna on halal food.

O IntramuraI ReIigious Dispute - outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities

Gonzales vs Archbishop
of Manila
where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical
affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more.
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the property rights of the religious group, or the
relations of the members where the property rights are involved, the civil
courtws may assume jurisdiction.

. Free Exercise CIause

Two Aspects of Free Exercise CIause:

1. Freedom to BeIieve

a) absolute
b) includes not to believe
c) "everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove what he believes

. Freedom to Act According to One's BeIiefs

a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions

b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of others

c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its
essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma

German vs Barangan

SC found that petitioners were not sincere in their profession
of religious liberty and were using it merely to express their
opposition to the government
Ebralinag vs division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu
SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and upheld the right
of petitioners to refute to salute the Philippine flag on account
of their religious scruples. To compel students to take part in
a flag ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will
violate their religious freedom.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military
service was brushed aside by the SC
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers
SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members of a
religious sect from being compelled to join a labor union
American Bible Society vs City of Manila the constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it
the right to disseminate information, and any restraint of such
right can be justified only on the ground that there is a clear
and present danger of an evil which the State has the right to
Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees to on sale is
inapplicable to the society
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a
generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of
religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the exerise of a
privilege, but only for the purpose of defraying part of the
cost of registration

O CompeIIing State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]

O the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a benevolent neutrality which recognizes that government
must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest
extent possible within flexible constitutional limits

O benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided it does not offend the
compelling state interest test.

O two steps as regards the test):

inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened; and
ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.

O n Centeno vs ViIIaIon-PorniIIos, the Court held that solicitiations for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from
DSWD as it is not included in solicitations for "charitable or public welfare purposes.

ReIigious Tests

O Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his civil of political rights because of
his religious beliefs.

O n PamiI v. TeIeron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is questioned whether or not it is consistent with the
religious clause of the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an "ecclesiastic from being elected or appointed to a municipal
office. Seven Justices voted to consider this a prohibited "religious test. Five justices said it is not a religious test but a
safeguard against the constant threat of union of Church and State that has marked the Philippine history. Hence, since the
majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution to nullify a statute was not reached, the disqualification remains

People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed
aside by the SC


Section 6, Art. III. The Iiberty of abode and of changing the same within the Iimits prescribed by Iaw shaII not be impaired
except upon IawfuI order of the court. Neither shaII the right to traveI be impaired except in the interest of nationaI security,
pubIic safety, or pubIic heaIth, as may be provided by Iaw.

Liberty uaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III

1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside

O Liberty of Abode "upon lawful order of the court
O Right to Travel "national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law

Caunca vs Salazar
82 Phil 851
Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another residence even if she had
not paid yet the amount advances by an employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a
fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual inseparable from the
idea of eternal. Money, power, etc. belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
Rubi vs Provincial Board
of Mindoro
The respondents were justified in requiring the members of certain non-
Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better education,
advancement and protection. The measure was a legitimate exercise of police
Villavicencio vs Lukban
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine
citizens, protected by the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode.
They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law
allowing such.
Salonga vs Hermoso
97 SCRA 121
the case became moot and academic when the permit to travel abroad was
issued before the case could be heard.
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Health
Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is
supported by high scientific authority. Such segregation is premised on the
duty to protect public health.
Manotok vs CA
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its
nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an accused from leaving the
jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no
binding force.
Marcos vs Manglapus
The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside
and travel within one's country but it does not include the right to return to
one's country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because
Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine Association of
Service Exporters vs
Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public
health or public order, as may be provided by law.
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is
constitutional for having been issued in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as
provided by the Labor Code.