SS ee ae embodies HO Universal This oF a person: 81 CHAPTER X . ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. , Due Process and Equal Protection \ Basic purpose of the Bill of Rights The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary iscrimi iti This bundle of rights guarantees _ the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of criminal law where it is necessary to. provide for an orderly administration of justice, to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, and to.afford adequate protection to constitutional rights. (Allado, et al, vs. _ Diokno, et al., 51 SCAD 91, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994, citing Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 95 [1967]). ' Concept of due process of law right to be heard Itis a law that hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry _ and renders judgment only after trial. It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. (Ermita Hotel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849; Perez vs. People, GR. _ No, 164763, 12 February 2008). The dual aspects of due process and their requirements 7 P myhould be Followed Dy. govt aqery hi The dual aspects of due process are: (1) due process: and (2 eubstantve due process. - i Oe NANCE) diSAlONANCE OF arbitral we The following are the requirements o' due process: 10 0S (1) There must be an impartial tribunal; (2) The court must have jurisdiction;~quttien'bhy te Acar f dedde (3) There must be opportunity to be heard; and must be a (eae (4) The judgment must be rendered after trial and in accordance with law. | ~ “Snpoh means before Tr condemns, sulin ; Th pryleeas__weun Mamry arm mundi Jeg men oA etn tim." 4 / Scanned with CamScannerSuUostanHal~ roevant evident that is enough to support, Me ton dusion 82 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUT}, 4 The following are the requisites of substantive due process: (1) The means are reasonable for the accomplishment of the purpose of the law; and ' (2) The law must be intended for the interest of the public Fath, than for private interest. The requirements of administrative due process quasi judid a The following are the requirements of administrative due process. (1) There must be a hearing where the evidence is Presenteg. (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence; (3) Thedecision must be supparted by the law; (4) The evidence must.support the decision; (5) The evidence must be presented in the hearing OF at leag, contained in the record and (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th Supp. 23); (6) . The tribunal must rely on independent judgment; and (7) The decision must state the facts and law so that the partie, may know the issue. Meaning of life in due process Life includes the tight of an individual to his hady in its completeness, and extends to the Use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable, (Justice Malcolm, Phil. Constitutional Law, p.380; Buck vs. Bell, 274 U.S. 200). pecent standard stvin Meaning of liberty.in due process Liberty includes the right to exist and the tight ta_be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use faculties in all lawful ways. (Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660). Meaning of property in due process Ne Property means js It represents more than the.things that a. and he the subject of a contract. person owns: it includes the sight to secure, and dispose of them. (Tonaco | vs. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197). tight ‘to .Nork' t Concept of deprivation of life and liberty It includes more than inflicting personal harm:and actual physical restraints by the direct operation of enactments of the legislature. A person may be deprived of life and liberty by the. (16 C.J.8.,, Scanned with CamScannerue oF RIGHTS 83 1165, cited in Phil. Constitutional Law, Neptall A. Gonzales, 1975 Ed., . 174). p. Right to due process is waivable The right to be heard Is as often waived as it is invoked, and validly so, gs long as the party is given an opportunity to be heard on his behalf. If he ts to be silent where he has a right to speak, he cannot later be heard to complain that he was unduly silenced. (Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. vs. cA GR. No. 88050, January 30, 1992). It is sufficient that he was given the opportunity to be heard. He need not be heard. (Antonio vs. CA, November 9, 1988). Due process does not require that there be trial Due process does not always require trial-type proceedings. The essence of due process is found in the opportunity to be heard and the submission of evidence. To be heard does not necessarily mean oral arguments in court. It may be thiaugh pleadings, (Zaldivar vs. SB; Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, October 7, 1988). Basic standards of due process s Due process must not overrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. It must be free from arbitrariness and it must be based on the sporting idea of fair play. (Ermita Hotel and Motel Assn. vs. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849). Essence of due process Due process requires a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. But due process as a constitutional precept does not, always and jin all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. (Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272 [1987]). The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity tobe heard and:submitany evidence’ one»may*have:inssupporteof:one's*defense. (Tajonera vs. Lamazoro, 110 SCRA 438; Richards vs, Asoy, 152 SCRA 45). “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there. is.no denial of procedural. due process.” (Juanita Yap Say vs. IAC, G.R. No. 73451, March 28, 1988). ‘What the law prohibits is. not-the absence of previous notice but the . (Tajonera vs. Lamazora, 110 SCRA 438; see also Medenilla vs. CSC, G.R. No. 97868, February 19, 1991; Abalos vs. CSC, G.R. No. 95861, April 19, 1991; Samalio vs. CA, ef al., GR. No. 140079, March 31, 2005). Scanned with CamScanner84 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND GONSTITUTIg, A license is neither a property nor right that is covered by the duy process clause of the Constitution A license authorizing a person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right. In Tan vs. The Director of Forestry, 125 SCRa | 302, it was ruled that "a license Is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authori granting it and the person to whom it Is granted; neither is it property or 3 property right, nor does it create a vested right.” In a more emphatic pronouncement, it was held in Oposa vs. Factoray, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, that. “Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.” (Chavez vs. Romulo, et al., GR. No. 157036, June 9, 2004), ‘ A television coverage of the trial of an accused is a denial of due process i The Supreme Court citing Estes vs. Texas, 381 US. 532, 146 ed. 2a 543, 85 S. Ct. 1628, the United States Supreme Court held that the television coverage of judicial proceedings is an inherent denial of due process rights .of an ‘accused and also identified the following as being likely prejudices: “1, The potential impact of television ... is perhaps of the greatest significance. ... . From the moment the trial judge announces that a case will be televised it becomes a cause celebre. The whole community, ... becomes interested in all the morbid details surrounding it. The approaching trial immediately assumes an important status in the public press and the accuséd is highly publicized along with the offense » with which he is charged. Every juror carries with him into'the jury box these solemn facts and thus increases the chance of prejudice that is present in every criminal case. ~ 2. The quality of the'testimony in criminal trials will often be impaired. The impact upon a witness of the knowledge that he is being viewed by a vast audience is simply incalculable. Some may be demoralized and frightened, some cocky and give to overstatement; memories, may falter, as will anyone speaking publicly, and accuracy of statement may be severely undermined. ... . Indeed, the mere fact that the trial is to be televised might render witnesses reluctant to appear and thereby impede the trial as well as the discovery of the truth. 3. A major aspect of the problem is the additional Tesponsibilities the presence of television places on the trial Scanned with CamScannerBILL OF RIGHTS 85 : judge. His job is to make certain that the accused receives a fair trial. This most difficult task requires his undivided attention. 4. Finally, we cannot ignore the impact of courtroom television on the defendant. Its presence is a form of mental- if not physical — harassment, tesembling a police line-up of the third degtee. The inevitable close-up of his gestures and expressions during the ordeal of his trial might well transgress his personal sensibilities, his dignity, and his ability to concentrate on the proceedings before him — sometimes the difference between life and death — -dispassionately, freely and without the distraction of wide public surveillance. A defendant on trial for a specific crime is entitled to his day in court, not in a stadium, or a city or nationwide arena. The heightened public clamor resulting from radio television coverage will inevitably result in prejudice.” Live television and radio coverage could have mischievous potentialities for intruding upon the detached atmosphere that should always surround the judicial process. (Estrada case). ‘EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Concept of the equal protection clause Those who have less in life should have more in law.to give them a better chance at competing with those who have more in life. (Philippine Ports Authority Employees Hired After July 1, 1989 vs. COA, G.R. No. 160396, 6 September 2005). -The equal protection clause simply means equality.in. the enjoyment . | of similar rights and. privileges granted. by law. (Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763). It means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the law enjoyed by the same class. (Smith Bell and Co. vs. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136; People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56; Republic vs. SB, Marcos, et al., 49 SCAD 229, G.R. No. 92594, March 4, 1994). It does not, however, guarantee economic equality buttonlyequality before the law. With _ fespect to juridical persons, only their properties are protected. The equal protection clause allows classification The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows Classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge Or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particular. A law is not invalid simply because Of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner Scanned with CamScanner86 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIgy, determines the matter of. constitutionality. All that is. required of vali classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences. that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limiteg to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. The standard is satisfied if the classification orGistinction.isibaseq on a reasonable foundation.or rational: basis-and:is:not:palpably:arbitrary, In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the purpose of | enacting laws over matters within its jurisdiction, the State is recognized ag | enjoying a wide range of discretion. It is not necessary that the classification | be based on scientific or marked differences of things or in their relations, Neither is it necessary that the classification be made with mathematica, nicety. Hence, legislative classification may in many cases properly rest on narrow distinctions for the equal protection guaranty does not preclude the legislative from recognizing degrees of evil or harm and legislation ig addressed to evils as they may appear. (CB (now BSP) Employees Assn,, Inc. vs. BSP, ef.al., GR..No. 148208, December 15, 2004): ¥ Requirements of valid classifications for purposes of the equal Protection clause _ ; They are the following: $6 -LA (1). They must rest on substantial distinctions that make real differences; t (2) They must be GRNMARe to the purpose of the law; (3) They must_not be limited to existing conditions only (People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56); and , (4) They must apply equally to all members of the-same class. (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil: 1155). 4 The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not.absolute. but is subject to reasonable classification. Petitioner served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for thirty-two (32) years. He MeN GB At the time of his retirement, P.D. No. 1638 was already existing. It provides that if a retired AFP member loses his citizenship, then, he will not continue to receive his pension and shall be removed from the retired list. He went to Hawaii and became an American citizen, hence, the AFP removed him from the list and stopped his pension. He questioned the validity of the law, contending that it is unconstitutional because the obligation imposed on him to retain Filipino citizenship as a condition for his continued entitlement to retirement benefit violates the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution. He argued that, the Scanned with CamScannerBILL OF RIGHTS 87 retirement law is in the nature of a contract between the government and its employees and that said P.D. No. 1638 discriminates against AFP retirees who have changed their nationality. While novel, the Supreme Court did not agree with his argument and ruled that the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute put is subject to_reasonable classification. To be reasonable, the classification: (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make for teal differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class. There is compliance with all these conditions. There is substantial difference between retirees who are citizens of the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by naturalization in another country. The constitutional right of the State to require all citizens to render personal and military service necessarily includes not only private citizens but also citizens who have retired from military service. A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the State. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the State to render compulsory military service when the need arises. His loss of Filipino: citizenship constitutes a substantial distinction that differentiates him from other retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship: If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. R.A. No. 7077 affirmed the constitutional right of the State to a Citizen Armed Forces. Section 11 of said’ law provides that citizen soldiers or reservists include ex-servicemen and retired officers of the AFP. Hence even a retiree is still part of the Citizen Armed Forces. Thus, the requirement imposed by Section 27 of P.D. No. 1638 is not oppressive, discriminatory, or contrary to public-policy. The State has ‘the right to impose a reasonable condition necessary for national defense. To rule otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the State. There is also no denial of due process in this case. When he lost his Filipino citizenship, the AFP had no choice but to stop his monthly pension in accordance with Section 27, P.D. No.°1638. He had the opportunity to contest the termination when he requested for reconsideration ‘before the Judge Advocate General's Office (SAGO) who denied his request. (Parrefio vs. COA and AFP Chief, G.R. No. 16224, June 7, 2007). * ® The NMAT rule requiring certain minimum scores in said examination is not in violation of the equal protection clause The NMAT rule requiring certain minimum scores in said examination is not in violation of the equal protection clause because different cut-off for Scanned with CamScanner88 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND. CONSTITUTIOy, different years is dictated by different conditions like the number of students number of schools with available places, and the level of difficulty of the . test. To establish a permanent cut-off may result in unreasonable rigidity which may violate the equal protection clause. (Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 736). The classification must be based on a distinction that makes reay differences — The law exempting the employees of‘the Government Financia, Institutions (GFls) from the coverage of the salary standardization law wag partly declared void because it did not provide for the same exemption of the rank and file employees of the .Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The reason is that, it is violative of the equal protection clause. , There are no substantial distinctions so as to differentiate the BSp rank-and-file from the other rank-and-file of other GFls. As regards the exemption from the Salary Standardization Law of other GFI rank-and-file employees, there.are no characteristics peculiar only.to the other GFls or their. rank-and-file so:as to justify the exemption which BSP rank-and-file employees were denied. The distinction made by the law is not only superficial, (Phil. Judges Assn. vs: Prado, 227 SCRA‘703), but also arbitrary, Itis not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the BSP rank-and-file and-other GFls. The classification must not only be reasonable, but must also apply equally to all members of the'class. The proviso may be fair on its face and impartial in appearance but it cannot be grossly discriminatory in its, operation, so as practically to. make unjust distinctions between persons who are without differences. (CB Employees Assn.,-Inc. vs. BSP, ef al., GR. No. 148208, December 15, 2004). Exemption from salary standardization means that the government institutions ‘can determine salaries of employees at their discretion depending upon their sources of income. The equal protection ‘clause does not prevent Congress from establishing classes of individuals or objects Itis settled in constitutional law that the “equal protection” clause does. not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate —'so:long-as.the.classification,is:not unreasonable? Congress is allowed a wide leeway in’ providing for a valid classification. (Assn. of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. vs. Sec. Agrarian Reforms, 175 SCRA 343; Tiu vs. CA, 301 SCRA 278). -The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated Scanned with CamScanneritt OF RIGHTS 89 and regulated differently from another, (Tiu vs. CA, 301 SCRA 278). The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class. (Dumlao vs. COMELEC, 95 gCRA392; CB Employees Assn. vs. BSP, ef al., G.R. No. 148208, December 46, 2004). Congress’ power to classify Is not absolute The inequality of treatment cannot be justified on the mere assertion that each exemption (granted to the seven other Government Financial institutions [GFl]) rests “on a policy determination by the legislature.” All legislative enactments necessarily rest on a policy determination — even those that have been declared to contravene the Constitution. Verily, if this could serve as a magic wand to sustain the validity of a statute, then no due rocess and equal protection challenges would ever prosper. There is nothing inherently sacrosanct in a policy determination made by Congress or by the Executive; it cannot run riot and overrun the ramparts of protection of the Constitution. : In fine, the “policy determination” argument may support the inequality of treatment between the rank-and-file and the officers of the BSP, but it cannot justify the inequality of treatment between BSP rank-and-file and other GFls’ who are similarly situated. It fails to appreciate that what is at issue in the second level of scrutiny is not the declared policy of each law er se, but the oppressive results of Congress’ inconsistent and unequal policy towards the BSP rank-and-file and those of the seven other GFls. At bottom, the second challenge. to the constitutionality of Section. 15(c), Article Il of RA No. 7653 is premised precisely on the irrational discriminatory policy adopted by Congress in its treatment of persons similarly situated. In the field of equal protection, the guarantee that “no person shall be... denied the equal protection of the laws” includes the prohibition. against. enacting: daws'that allow invidious discrimination, directly or indirectly«If a law has the effect of denying, the equal protection of the law, or permits such Genial, it is unconstitutional: (People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56; CB Employees Association’ vs. BSP, et a/., G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004). e \ HPL E Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable. searches-and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be.inviolable; and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable-cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and_particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Agavis’ arvitrary Cqrrusion (ane Scanned with CamScanner90 Arye ? . PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUT}, aged only againct the vale \ SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Constitutional guarantee on the right of the people againg, unreasonable searches and selzures. The social right against arrest, search and seizure without a Valig, warrant is not only ancient. It is also zealously safeguarded. (Valdez Vg People, GR. No. 170180, 23 November 2007). : The Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure iy their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searche, and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolabig and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probablg cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination unde, cath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons o, things to be seized.” (Sec. 2, Article Ill, 1987 Constitution). When search warrant considered valid A search wairant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The officers of the law are to seize only those things particularly described in the search warrant. A search warrant is not‘a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or explanatory. Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. (United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, ef al., GR. No. 163858, June 28, 2005). LiteHime. search warrant - 10 days Proper description of place to be searched. ' % The longstanding rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and.identify.the.place.intended and distinguish,it:from,other.places.in.the ‘community? Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers | unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement. © ‘Moreover, in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held that the executing officer's prior: knowledge’ as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is thevaffiant on whose affidavit the warrant had been issued, and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the compound | described in the affidavit. where 10 file a search warrant- in the vourt whose territorial jurisdiction where crime Was Canmitted: EXCEPMON: compelling reason Scanned with CamScannerWAITANE Of AUST - PErSHA fearch warrant = things itt OF RIGHTS Conde> SpeLiAG unit boning hogy — only one nt apbeared ty be Siege Ccupancy 4 CW Even if there are several structures inside the MASAGANA compound, there was no need to particularize the areas to be searched because these : structures constitute the essential and necessary components of the petitioners’ business and cannot be treated-separately as they form part of one entire compound. The compound is owned and used solely by MASAGANA. What the case law merely requires is that the place to be istinquished in relation to the other places in the community. Indubitably, this requisite was complied with in the instant case. (Yao, Stet al, vs. People, et al., GR. No. 168306, June 19, 2007). -iSue Z Separate wartans | Concept of a general or “scatter-shot warrant” A general or “scatter-shot warrant” is a search warrant issued for more. specific offense, like violation of P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 1700. It is void because it violates the constitutional requirement that there _ must be particularity of the things to be seized and persons and places to be searched. (Leon Tambasen vs. People, ef al., 62 SCAD 679, G.R. No. - 99103, July 14, 1995). It is a search warrant which vaguely-describes and does»not particularize the personal properties to be seized without a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized, thus giving the officers of the law-discretion: regarding whatvarticles they should:seize. (Nolasco vs. Pafio, GR. No. 69803, October 8, 1985; Stonehill vs. Diokno; Bucs vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800). y Sei Warrant is wold because ’ ihe things tobe seizes. Nias eo vs. Pare) Effect of a general warrant The requirement that search warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. (Stanford, Jr. vs. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 (1965), 13 L. ed: 2d 431). Thus, the specific property to be searched for should be so particularly _ described as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other property. (Lea vs. State, 181 S.W. 351 [1944]). The tenor of a seizure warrant which is too all embracing contravenes the explicit command of the Constitution that there be a particular description ofthe things tobe seized. (Rep. vs. SB, 225 SCRA 438 [1996]). The executing its subject.matter, which function may frequently involve the exercise of limited discretion in identifying the property described. A description of such generality, however, as to lodge ; in the executing officer virtually unlimited discretion as to what property shall be seized, is repugnant to the Constitution. (Rep. vs. SB; People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169 [1925]; Vallejo-vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 156413, April 14, 2004). “eXcept (pmpelling redson by the Judicial region: Scanned with CamScannerif car parked wilh Fhe house, cen ve sarcnedl 92 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTig N When searches without warrant are permissible 'WLa~ PC! Search may be made without warrant under the following cases: (1) In times of war and within the area of military operation; (2) Asanincident ofa lawful arrest, subject to the following Tequisitas, a) The arrest must be lawful; } b) The search and seizure must be contemporaneous wi, arrest; and c) The search must be within_permissible areas of search (Nolasco vs. Pafio, 189 SCRA 541); (3) When there are,prohi bited articles open to eye and hand (Peo, le vs. Alfonso, G.R. No. 87367, February 19, 1993); or the plaig view!delrine: Substantial req: inadvertedly discovered | (4) When there is consent, subject to the following requisites: a) There is a right; .b) There must be knowledge of the existence of such riohe and c) | There must be intention to waive. (People vs. cruz, August ® 30, 1988); ! (5) When it is an incident of | po (People vs, Encinada, 87 SCAD 586, GR. No. 116720, October 2, 1997; People vs. Peralta,’ ey et al.; GR. No. 145176,-March 30; 200 fe Concept of probable cause - personal renohledge Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has | been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA, GR. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988). well Foundry) peli that eng2)deis pegaabilits rhe «Requisites for the determination ‘of the existence of probable in an application for a search warrant PUR The determination of the existence of probable cause requires the following: 14. The judge must examine. the complainant and his witnesses ol of 6 been “() use 2. The examination must be.under oath; and The examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers. (Rule.126, Secs. 4 and 5, Rules of Court). - exhaustive auesHoning Scanned with CamScannergit OF RIGHTS 93 The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard- and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his examination, it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma. The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry ~ on the intent and justification of the application. The questions should not merely be repetitious of the averments stated in the affidavits or depositions _ of the applicant and the witnesses. |f the judge falls to determine. probable * gause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant, grave _abuse_of 6/0 . (People vs. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006; Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc., GR: No. 165122, 22 November 2007), Rationale for the validity of search of a moving vehicle » The rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is,the object of the search on» the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge = a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use.of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that “it is © not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved. out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” (People vs. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 122). Nevertheless, the exception from securing a search warrant when it comes to a moving vehicle does not give the police authorities unbridled discretion to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. To do so would render the aforementioned constitutional stipulations inutile and expose the’ citizenry to indiscriminate police distrust which could amount to outright ‘ harassment. Surely, the policy consideration behind the exemption of search of moving vehicles does not encompass such arbitrariness on the partrof ° the police authorities, in.recognition that probable cause exist in order to justify the warrantless search of a vehicle. (Caballes vs. CA, 424 Phil. 263 (2002); People vs. Tuazon, G.R: No. 175783, September 3, 2007). Justification for and. scope of allowance of a “stop-and-frisk” Where police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in 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 investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable a and where Scanned with CamScanner94 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIo, Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonabj, fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himse, and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outs, clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might by used to assault him, Such a search Is a reasonable search under the Fourth amendment.” (Malacat vs. CA, 283 SCRA 159). No probable cause required in stop and frisk search While probable cause is not required to conduct a “stop-and-frisk”, jt nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop. and-frisk.” A»genuine-reason»mustvexist, in light of the police officer's , experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. ‘Two-fold interests that are served by the stop and frisk search A‘ 'stop-and-frisk’ serves a two- fold interest: (1),for:the general.interest nd-detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressingjinterest of safety.and self-preservationwhich permit the police officer to take steps tovassure himself that the-person-with: whom:he:dedls:is not. “armediwith a deadly Weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. (People vs. Chua). 6 Checkpoints not illegal per se Checkpoints are not illegal per se, thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival of organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety.of,the.people-are.in»grave-peril; checkpoints may be allowed. and installed by the government: Although the general rule is that motorists and their vehicle as well as pedestrians passing through checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. (Valmonte vs. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665; People vs. Venicario, ef al., GR. No. 141137, January 20, 2004). Conditions for the plain view doctrine to apply In order for the doctrine to apply, the following conditions must be present: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) | Scanned with CamScanner. y pul OF RIGHTS "The discovery must be INAOVERTENT: 95 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and ) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. (People vs. Sarap, et al., G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, ef a/., GR. No. 163858, June 28, 2005). Nature of the plain view doctrine The doctrine is not an exception to the warrant. It merely serves to supplement the prior justification - whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or some other legitimate reason for being present, unconnected with a search directed against the accused. The doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory earch from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. It is a recognition of the fact that when executing police officers come across immediately incriminating evidence not covered by the warrant, they should not be required to close their eyes to it, regardless of whether it is evidence of the crime they are investigating or evidence of some other crime. It would be needless to require the police to obtain another warrant. Under the doctrine, there is no invasion ofa legitimate expectation of privacy and there is no search within the meaning of the Constitution. (United Laboratories, Inc, vs. Isip, et al, GR. No. 163858, June 28, 2005). The existence of many structures inside the compound does not. violate the rule that a particular description is required The longstanding rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement. Moreover, in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held that the executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrantis relevant. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had been issued, and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the compound described in the affidavit. Even if there are several structures inside the MASAGANA compound, there was no need to particularize the areas to be searched because these structures constitute the essential and necessary components of the petitioners’ business and cannot be treated separately as they form part of One entire compound. The compound is owned and used solely by MASAGANA. What the case law merely requires is that the place to be Scanned with CamScanner96 62a sys PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND Constituny, searched can be distinguished in relation to the other places in the commun Indubitably, this requisite was complied with in the instant case. (Yao, Sr, 4 al. vs. People, et al., G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007). Concept of a buy-bust operation A buy-bust operation is a method employed by police authorities 1, malefactors in the act of committing the crinte of drug vending. It is essentiah, a form of entrapment, a procedure not prohibited by the Revised Peng Code. (People vs. Bandin, 44 SCAD 684, G.R, No. 104494, September 1) 1993; People vs. Marcos, 165 SCRA 154; People vs. Ramos, 203 SCR, 237). Concept of arrests in in flagrante delicto In in flagrante delicto arrests, the accused is apprehe: ee momenthe is committing or attempting to commit or ha offense in the present of the arresting officer. The law oer that in search be incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore, a lawful arrest must precedg the search of a person and his belongings. For. this exception to apply, two elements must concur: w the person to be arrested must have executed | an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (24 such overt act is done in the presence orwithin the view of the arresting officer. In this case, the accused was merely approaching the hotel but there was no overt manifestation that accused has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit acrime. Thus, there could have been no in flagrante delicto arrest preceding the search. (People vs. Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003). Waiver of right against unreasonable search and seizure When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made ‘on the person or premises, he is. precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secured may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search, 41 packages of drugs were found, it behooves the officers to seize the same, no warrant was necessary for such seizure. (People vs. Omaweng, GR. No. 99050, September 2, 1992). NO WAIVER ON ihnmidating cirwimctance (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section | shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Scanned with CamScannerBILL OF RIGHTS PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS Concept of the right to privacy pl means the ie {9 be left alone, or the not necessal Zones of privacy in our law The right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. (Morfe vs. Mutuc). It is recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights: “Sec. 3(1). The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.” “Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws; Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be * inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized; Sec. 6, The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court: Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law; Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged; and Scanned with CamScanner oF Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, viz.:98 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND. CONSTITUTIgy Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness againg himself.” (Cortes, The Constitutional Foundations of Privacy, p. 4g [1970}). Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws The Civil Code provides that “every person shall respect the dignity personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persong: and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person. of meddling ang prying into the privacy of another, (Art. 26, NCC), It also holds a public officg, or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person (Art. 32, NCC), and recognizes thg privacy of letters and other private communication. (Art. 723, NCC). The Revised Penal Code makes it a crime the violation of secrets by an office; (Art. 229, RPC), the revelation of trade and industrial secrets (Arts. 299. 292, RPC), and trespass to dwelling. (Art. 280, RPC). Invasion of privacy ig an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A: No. 4200); the Deposits Act (R.A. No. 1405); and The Intellectual Property Code (R.A. No. 8293). The Rules of Court on privilege communication likewise recognizes the privacy of certain information. (Sec. 24, Rule 130[c]), Basis and basic purpose of the right to privacy The right to privacy is founded on a person’s inherent right to enjoy private life without having incidents thereto made ‘public. It is considered ag a right to live as one chooses, but of course it is not an absolute right. It can be interfered with by the State upon lawful order of the court as when a search warrant is issued against a person. The right is not violated if the State interferes an- grounds of public safety and security’ This occurs when the State exercises police power which is most irresistible of all powers of government. Illegally obtained documents are inadmissible in evidence The constitutional injunction declaring privacy of communication and : correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply, because it is the wife who feels aggrieved by her husband's infidelity and who is a party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception is, if there is a lawful order of a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders. the @vidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. ss. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them breaking the cabinets and drawers of the othgr and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting is or her intearity or right to privacy as an indivi Scanned with CamScanneriLL OF RIGHTS 99 and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. (Zulueta vs. CA, et al., 68 SCAD 440, GR. No. 107383, February 20, 1996). A spouse Can testify on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report . In a petition for annulment of marriage grounded on psychological incapacity, a confidential psychiatric evaluation report on the defendant wife may be testified to by the plaintiff husband without offending the privileged communication tule. (Krohn vs. CA, 52 SCAD 250, G.R. No. 108854, June 44, 1994). E oC E Pep po Rot No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of sp of expression, or of the pas be the right of the people oy to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. OF EXPRESSION Basis for the constitutional guarantee : Itis Said that it is better to have an irresponsible press than to have a timid press. Putting it in the extremes, in reporting official acts and conduct of government and public officials, it is better to have an irresponsible press than to have a timid press. But in discharging the media responsibility as watchdog of public officials, the newspaperman must always adhere to the ethical standards of truth and fairness. The theory behind freedom of expression is that ours is a democratic society and so the only way to rule ultimately is by means of public opinion, which is possible only when everyone can speak their minds and compete in the free marketplace of ideas. What the guarantee of free speech protects The guarantee of free speech was enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even expression in its most unsophisticated form. Criminal libel stands as a necessary qualification f9 any absolutist interpretation of the free clause, if onl Deee it t unrefuted, would gain an un order to safeguard against fears that the public debate might be muted due to the reckless enforcement of libel laws, truth has been sanctioned as defense, much more in the case when the statements in question address public issues or involve public figures. (Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing vs. CA, et al., GR. No. 128959, September 30, 2005, Tinga, J.). Nature of the freedom of expression rights Freedom of expression, the right of speech and of the press is, to be Sure, among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution. But Scanned with CamScanner100 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUT, every person exercising it is, as the Civil Code stresses, obliged “to act Wit justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” Th constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of ty broadcast lies or half-truths — this would not be “to observe honesty ap, good faith,” it may not be used to insult others, destroy their name o regulation or bring them into disrepute — this would not be “to act With justice” or “give everyone his due.” Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitfy exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that a lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public official should enjoy immunity, 4 knowingly false statement.made with reckless disregard of the truth, does not enjoy constitutional protection, for the use of calculated falsehood wouly put a different cast on the constitutional question of protection of the writer (In Re: Emil Jurado, 60 SCAD 364, Adm. Matter No. 93-2-0317). Nature of the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances _ The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression and of the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection: For these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic policy, without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. As stated in Jacinto vs. CA, 346 SCRA 665 (1997) the right to assembly and petition has been upheld thus: “There is no question as to the petitioners’ rights to peaceful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or form associations for_p urposés not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful concerted activities. These rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed pronouncements defending and promoting the people’s rights. As early as the onset of this country, the Court in U.S. vs. Apurado, already upheld: the tight to. assembly and petition and even went as far as to acknowledge: ‘It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feelings are always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense Scanned with CamScanneritt OF RIGHTS 101 the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefore, but the utmost discretion must be lally pe: I mbly an uprising,’ (citing U.S. vs, Apurado, 7 Phil. 422; Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubuking ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al, vs. Ermita, et al., ee No. 169838, April 25, 2006).” Students who demonstrated in a school in the exercise of the freedom of assembly may not be barred from enrolling The exercise of freedom of assembly could not be a basis for barring students from enrolling. The school and its officials are enjoined from acts of surveillance, blacklisting, suspension and refusal to re-enroll. Schools, however, may refuse.to re-enroll students who clearly incurred marked academic deficiency. The academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher learning: includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students. Once done, however, that standard should be followed meticulously. It cannot be used to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. Ifit does so, then there is a legitimate grievance by the students thus prejudiced, toinvoke:that their right to equal protection is being disregarded. The school cannot inflict highly-disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment and the consequent failure of senior students to graduate, if in the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, improper conduct could be attributed to then. (Non vs. Dames Il, G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990). The freedom of expression is not absolute g The freedom of expression is is not apse as “ul is 1 of the State, fe ARDGENSRNEISERVe a areari mney exercise such freadém. the publishers of news magazines should check the sources of their information to ensure the publication of the truth. Freedom of the press like all other freedoms should be exercised with responsibility. (Newsweek vs. IAC, GR. No. 6359, May 30, 1987). Scanned with CamScanner~ seditious yi they i d wi 102 init the pe ("Stun “dangerrns [Cndny ryig" 6 1186 agalht the P '9, x ¢——e Nature of the clear and present danger rule Under the est a and cee pbc ru, there must be f ! egree of occurrence is imminent. Tin, element is of the essence as there isa éaueal relationship between th, utterance and the publication and the evil sought to be preventey Substantive evil will occur as a matter of course because of the utterang, and the publicity. There is.no time to avert the danger by an informatio, campaign. . Outline of the procedure to be followed under the Public Assembly Act The following procedures should be followed under the Public Assembly Act: (1) An application fora i be filed with the Mayor's office a least five (5) working days before the rally; (2) It must be filed in writing stating the names of the organizations and the leaders, dates, size of the crowd, manner of the use of street, and sound system to be used; (3) If the Office of the Mayor_refuses to accept, it is enough that a ~Copy be posted in the premises of the Office of the Mayor; (4) The Mayor has two (2) working days to act'on the application. If No action is made, it is deemed granted. If the Mayor determines that under the clear and present danger rule, the rally will-create disorder, he should-not deny it. A hearing should be conducted. If not satisfied that no danger will result, then the Mayor may deny it; and (5) If denied, the applicant can go to court, but not the Supreme Court: The court has 24 hours to act on the issue. If it is reversed, it is final. There can be no appeal by the local authorities. If it is | against the applicants, they can appeal to. the Supreme Court. (Public Assembly Act, B.P. Blg. 880). Permit not necessary in the conduct of a rally in the following instances FI¢ There is no need for a permit when the rally is conducted in: (1) Freedom parks; (2) Inside private properties; and (3) Campuses of state colleges and universities. Scanned with CamScannergiut OF RIGHTS 103 official acts and conduct may be criticized The Supreme Court has ruled that complete liberty to comment on the official acts of public men is like a scalpel in the case of free speech. The incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in the public life may suffer from unjust accusation, but the wound is assuaged by the palm of a clear conscience. Men have the right to attack, rightly or wrongly, the policy of a public official, with every argument which ability can find or ingenuinely innervate. They may show, by arguments good or bad, such policy to be injurious to the individual and to society. (U.S. vs. Bustos, 37 phil. 734 Limitation on the above exercise While Se can n criticize, the law does not permit them to falsely impeach s, attack honesty, blacken the virtue, or injure the reputation of Men | inay argue, but they may not traduce. Man may differ, but they may not, for that reason, falsely charge dishonesty. Men may look at policies from different points of view, and see them in different lights, but they may not, on that account falsely charge’ criminally, lack virtue, bad notions, evil intentions, or corrupt heart and mind. Men may falsely charge that policies are bad, but they cannot falsely charge that men are bad. (U.S. vs. Contreras, 23 Phil. 513). Criticism of judicial conduct The guarantee of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial. conduct. The administration of law is an aan the people cannot criticize a judge in the same manner ae manne 6 any pa office: i Opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted terroriz rizat P th stiri anne SEER eminohlieieseee ‘so US. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731). Freedom of assembly is not absolute The freedom of assembly is not absolute as it is subject to certain limitations like the clear and present danger rule. In Reyes vs. Bagatsing, GR. No. 65366, November 9, 1993, 125 SCRA 553, it was held: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of » grievances. Free speech, like free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for Scanned with CamScannerPHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUy, % sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. Freedom of assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to be accorded utmost deference and respect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as is the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger ofa substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. The on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, ofa character both grave and imminent, of a fety,_ public Li .” (Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubuking ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al. vs. Ermita, et al., GR. No. 169838, April 25, 2006). Guidelines in the implementation of the maximum tolerance rule The law. enforcement agents shall do the following: (1) (2) ohew enforcement a encies shall not interfere with the holding g a public assembly" owever, to adequately ensure public Safety, alaw enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meters away from the area of activity ready _to maintain peace and order at all times. (Sec. 9); It shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies, when their | assistance is requested by the leaders or organizers, to perform | their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide | proper protection to those exercising their right to peaceably | assembly and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines: a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which ‘they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal part of their uniform and must observe the policy “maximum tolerance” as herein defined; 5 b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, crash helmets with visors, gas masks: boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards; and Scanned with CamScannergilt OF RIGHTS c) 105 Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot devices shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction or property. (Sec. 10; Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubuking ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al. vs. Ermita, et al., GR. No. 169838, April 25, 2006). Rule: A public assembly without permit shall not be dispersed; exceptions No public assembly with a permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police may disperse such public assembly as follows: (a) (b) (e) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance; If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the pablie assembly will be dispersed; If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the Preceding paragraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse; No*arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (Sec. 11) Isolated.acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during the public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. (Bayan, Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubuking ng Pilipinas (KMP), et al. vs. Egmita, et al., GR. No. 169838, April 25, 2006). Scanned with CamScanner106 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIo, Distinction between “content-based restrictions” on free speech and “content-neutral restrictions” Content-based restrictions are imposed because of the content of the speech and are, therefore, subject to the cladr-sind-preserit danger tes) An example is the case of Sanidad vs, COMELEC, 181 SCRA 529, which, provides that columnists, commentators, and announcers campaigning eithe, for or against an Issue in a plebiscite must have compelling reason to SUPPoH it, or it will not pass muster under strict scrutiny. These restrictions arg censorial and therefore, they bear a heavy presumption of constitution, | invalidity. In addition,’ they will be tested for possible overbreadth ang | vagueness. | Content-neutral restrictions, on the other hand, like Sec. 11(b) of R.A, No. 6646, which prohibits the sale or donation of print space and airtime to political candidates during the campaign period, are not concerned with the content of the speech. These regulations need only a substantia, governmental interest to support them. A deferential standard of review wil) suffice to test their validity. The clear-and-present danger rule ig inappropriate as a test for determining the constitutional validity of laws, like Sec. 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which are not concerned with the content of Political ads but only with their incidents. To apply the clear-and-present danger test to such regulatory measures would be like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a regular hammer.is all that is needed. The test for this difference in the level of justification for the restriction of speech is that content-based restrictions distort public debate, have improper motivation, and are ‘usually imposed because of fear of how people will react to’a particular speech. No such reasons underlie content-neutral regulations, like regulation ‘of time, place and manner of holding public assemblies under B.P. Blg, 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985. (Osmena vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447). Mere advocacy ‘of communism not punishable Mere advocacy of communism or the communistic theory and principle is not to be considered 'as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. Unless action is actually advocated, or intended or, contemplated, the communist is a mere ‘theorist, merely holding belief inthe supremacy of the proletariat, a communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the_reins of government by it. As a theorist, the communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field subject to punishment. Only when the communist advocates action and actual uprising war, or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion, (People vs, Hernandez, L-6025 and L-6026, May 30, 1964). Scanned with CamScannerr | | | pILL OF RIGHTS 107 : \ section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of | religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise ‘and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. FREEDOM OF RELIGION | Religious freedom Inits broadest sense, itis the right of man to worship God, to entertain such religious views as appeal to his individual conscience without dictation or interference by any person or power, civil or ecclesiastical. (16 Am. Jur. | 648). The freedom includes the freedom not to believe as it applies to the believers and non-believers. Wextent of the guarantee of religious freedom The freedom of religion is guaranteed to the extent that'a person may: (1) Worship God according to the dictates of his conscience; (2) Not to worship God at all; (3) Entertain notions respecting his relationship with God; (4) Exhibit sentiments in such form of worship not injurious to the equal rights of others; and (5) Prohibit any legislation’for the support of religion because the State cannot establish a church, aid one, aid all and participate in purely religious activities. ‘Iwo (2) aspects inthe freedom of religion clause = ( \F) The aspects of the freedom of religion clause are; (1) The non-establishment clause; and j (2) The*free exercise clause. (Ebralinag, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, GR. No.’ 95770} March 1, 1993). The free exercise clause is not absolute The exercise of the freedom of religion is not absolute because it'is subject to the police power of the State. In fact, in German vs. Barangan, March 27, 1985, it was said that the freedom of religion must be exercised in good faith. This was a situation where the Supreme Court said that when people, who claimed to be holding mass near Malacafiang Palace, were instead chanting words against the government, they can be prevented as it Was actually a demonstration. People come and go to Malacafiang, the Scanned with CamScanner108 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIO, lives of the members of the First Family and the security of the people going in and out were the concerns of the State. When they were prevented, therg was no deprivation of the freedom of religion. What was at issue was the manner of the exercise. A petson may believe, and there is no limit to it, by, the manner of doing it is subject to regulation. (Ebralinag, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March 1, 1993). Violation of the free exercise clause There is violation of the free exercise of religion clause when the elemeny of coercion is present. Violation ‘of the non-establishment clause The non-establishment of religion clause is violated when the State uses its rights, authority, funds and resources behind an activity that is _ essentially and intrinsically religious. Freedom to believe is absolute The freedom to believe is eBeotute as long as the belief is confineg | within the realm of thought. (Ebralinag, et al. vs. Dj isi n Superintendent of | Schools of Cebu, March-1, 1993). But the TMorpont en Bale le fut int an | if ity. the can come in and stop such act as the freedom is not absolute. Ecclesiastical affair - absolute; complete Separation An ecclesiastical affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of | worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious | association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the | membership, and ‘the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership. (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition [1 979}, p. 460). Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members and relate to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the’ congregation. To ; be concrete, examples of this so-called ecclesiastical affairs to which the | State canriot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, administration of sacraments and other activities with attached religious significance. School children were compelled to salute the flag resulting in their expulsion when they refused There was a time when members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled when they refused to salute the flag. This was so because it was | predicated that: Scanned with CamScannerau oF RIGHTS 109 “The flag ceremony will become a thing of the past or perhaps conducted with very few, participants, and the time will come when we would have citizens ‘untaught and * uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the flag and love of country, admiration for national heroes, and patriotism. A pathetic, even tragic situation, and all because a small portion of the school population imposed its will, demanded, and was granted an exemption.” (Gerona vs. Secretary of Education, et al., 106 Phil: 2, 1959). Change of the rule But it took such religious sect almost four (4) decades to convince the Supreme Court that their refusal to salute the flag is a part of their freedom of religion. It was the conviction that by exempting them from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge, this small group’ which admittedly compromises a small portion of the school population will not shake up this part'of the. globe and: suddenly produce a nation untaught and uninculcated in and not imbued with reverence for the flag and love of country, or: admiration for national heroes. After all, what they were merely asking was exemption from flag ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools where they may study the Constitution, the democratic way of life and form of government and learn not only the arts, sciences, Philippine history.and culture, but also receive training for a vocation or profession and be taught the virtues of patriotism, respect for human rights, appreciation of national heroes, rights and duties of citizenship, moral and spiritual values. (Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu; 219 SCRA 256, 1993)..Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very situation that the SC feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate ina ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities: Intrusion by. government in the issuance of halal certifications Only the prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54). If the government fails to show the seriousness and immediacy of the threats, State intrusion is constitutionally unacceptable. In a society with a democratic framework, the State must minimize its interference with the affairs of its citizens and instead allow them to exercise reasonable freedom of personal and religious activity. There is no compelling justifi cation for the government to deprive Muslim organizations of their religious right to classify a product as halal, even on Scanned with CamScanner110 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTig, the premise that the health of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively Protectey by assigning the Office for Muslim Affairs (OMA) the exclusive power to iSsug halal certifications. The protection and promotion of their right to health at already provided for in existing laws administered by government agencieg charged with ensuring that food products released in the market are fit for human consumption, properly labeled and safe. Unlike E.0. No. 46, thesg laws do not encroach on the religious freedom of muslims. Relationship of employer and employee between the church and its minister, not within the scope of religious practice While the matter at hand relates to the church and its religious Minister, it does not ipso facto give the case a religious significance. Simply Stated, what is involved here is the relationship of the church as an employer ang the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church. In this case, petitioner was not excommunicated or expelled from the membership of the SDA (Seventh Day Adventists) but was terminated from employment. Indeed, the matter of terminating an employee, which is purely secular in nature, is different from the ecclesiastical act of expelling a member from the religious congregation. Prohibition against religious test In the exercise of civil and political rights, the Constitution prohibits the imposition of religious test which requires the avowal or repudiation of certain eligious beliefs before the performance of any act. (Corwin, The Constitution and What it is Today, p. 151). That is why a law that prescribes as qualification to hold public office the requirement of religious belief is void. If religious test is required to hold public office or-the exercise of civil rights, then the Constitutional provision would become a meaningless provision. It would lead to a violation of the separation of church and State. (Pastor Dionisio vs. Austria vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, 110 SCAD 785, August 16, 1999). Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. “ition @ LIBERTY OF ABODE Concept of liberty It is the right of a person to establish his house in a place of choice and to change it. The right is not absolute, 4 there may be a law that restricts the freedom, as when the person is a I ber ora convict. The law Scanned with CamScannerBILL OF RIGHTS 1 provides that the right to live in a place of choice is limited. Public safet and security, therefore, are [imitations to the right. No guaranteed right to return to one’s country The heirs of the late President Marcos wanted to bring his remains back to the Philippines, but President Aquino decided otherwise. The decision " was questioned as depriving him of the liberty of abode. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the decision of President _ Aquino because the demand to return cannot be considered solely on the constitutional guarantee of liberty of abode and the right to travel. Since Marcos posed a serious threat to the national security, interest and welfare, ~ President Aquino had the power to prevent his return as she was clothed with extraordinary power in times of war and in peace. The power involved was the residual power to protect the general welfare of the people, founded on the duty as steward of the people. (Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989). The right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the court on grounds other than the interest of national security, public safety and public health The theory that under the 1987 Constitution, courts can impair the right to travel only on the ground of “national security, public safety, or public health” is not well taken. His argument that the Manotoc Ruling to the effect that the condition imposed upon the accused admitted to bail to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on the right to travel no longer holds under the 1987 Constitution, is far from tenable. The nature and function of a bail bond has remained unchanged whether under the 1935, the 1973 or the 1987 Constitution. : Silverio is facing a criminal charge. He posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof by failing to appear before the court when’ required. _ Warrants for his arrest have been issued. These orders and processes would be rendered nugatory if an accused were to be allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the country. Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the courts, by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The offended party in a criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that the criminal prosecution should Tun their course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to court orders and processes. Scanned with CamScanner* Oh Hs oWn moron V2 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUT}, The condition imposed upon an accused to make himself available all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a Vali restriction of his right to travel. A person facing criminal charges may restrained by the Court from leaving the country or, if abroad, may 4 compelled to return. Also, an accused released on bail may be re-arrest, without the need of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philipping, without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending. (Silverio " CA, GR. No. 94284, April 8, 1991) Hold departure order may be issued even without a motion by th, prosecution The Sandiganbayan can take judicial notice of the plan of Santiago jy go abroad and thereafter issue ‘sua sponte the hold departure order. The hold departure order is but an exercise of the court's inherent power { preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case anq the person of the accused. It has the power to make interlocutory orders necessary to protect its jurisdiction. (Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs. Conrady Vasquez, et al., G.R. No. 99289-90, January 27, 1993). Right to travel not impaired by a hold departure order When the accused posted bail which was legally declared valid anq complete despite her absence at the time of the filing thereof, she assumed an obligation to hold herself amenable at all times to the orders and processes ofthe court. She may therefore, be legally prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. (Santiago vs. Vasquez, et al., January 27, 1993). The basic reason for the rule is found in People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404. (1935), where it was said that inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which orders and processes were issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines, they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction. : Right of prostitutes While prostitutes may be considered menaces to society, their freedom to live in a place is their choice. They cannot be arrested tobe sent to | another place without their consent. They are not properties or chattels. They have their own rights to be respected. (Villavicencio vs..Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 [1919]). Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be’ afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. political rights - Only to ettizens of PH Scanned with CamScannerpit OF RIGHTS 113 RIGHT TO INFORMATION Nature and concept of the right to information. Under both the 1973 and 1987 Constitution, this is a self-executory provision which can be invoked by any citizen before the courts. In Legaspi ys. Civil Service Commission, 160 SCRA 530, the Court classified the right to information as a public right and “when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied py the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the eneral ‘public’ which possesses the right.” However, Congress may provide for reasonable conditions upon the access to information. Such limitations are embodied in R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees,” which took effect in March 25, 1999. This law provides that, in the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are obliged to respond to letters sent by the public within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof and to ensure the accessibility of all public documents for inspection by the public within reasonable working hours, subject to the reasonable claims of confidentiality. The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation’s problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they are denied access to information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the time. The information to which the public is entitled to are those concerning matters of public concern, a term which “embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.” In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case to case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest and of importance, as it relates to or affects the public. (Legaspi vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530; Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14; Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 297 SCRA 254; Lantaco vs. Llamas, 108 SCRA 502). Recognized limitations on the right to information While the people have the right to information on matters of public concern, theré are however limitations on the right to information such as: (1) National Security Matters — these include state secrets regarding military. diplomatic, and other national security concerns; and information on inter-governmental exchanges. prior to the conclusion of treaties and other executive agreements; (2) Trade secrets and other banking transactions pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code and the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; Scanned with CamScanner114 PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION -(3) Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters; and (4) Other confidential matters. The Ethical Standards Act prohibits public officials and employees from using dr divulging confidentia) or classified information officially known to them by reason of | their office and not made available to the public. (Chavez vs, PCGG, GR. No, 130716, December 9, 1998). Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. . RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS Basic purposes of the constitutional guarantee to, form associations The purposes of the guarantee to form associations are intended to: (1) ae pe aoe y idual to join others of like persuasions to pursue (2) To pct g human beings; and (3) To, widen the sphere for expression or personality, Extent of the right to form associations The people can form any association but the right is circumscribed by the phrase “not contrary to law.” If the organization is intended to commit crimes, that is not protected by the constitutional guarantee. Concept of the right It is the freedom to organize, to join groups or associations and to adopt rules to implement their objectives. The right includes the right not to join because of religious beliefs like the members of the Iglesia ni Kristo who do not believe in joining unions. Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This is extensively discussed. in the chapter on the power of eminent domain Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be Passed. ; Scanned with CamScannerBILL OF RIGHTS { 115 NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE Purposes of the constitutional prohibition against the passage of a jaw impairing obligations of contracts subservient to the The basic purposes are: pollie Power (1) To implement the freedom of contracts; (2) To protect property rights (Philam Life vs. Auditor General, 22 SCRA 135); and (3) To safeguard the integrity of contracts against unwarranted interference by the State. Contract that is protected by the non-impairment clause Only contracts which are legal and lawful are protected. (Lozano vs. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323). when there is impairment of the obligation of contracts When a right is taken or when a person is deprived of the means for enforcing such right, there is impairment. (Gov't. vs. Visayan Surety Ins. Co., 38 O.G. 2814; Manila Trading Co. vs. Reyes, 62 Phil. 461). Degree of impairment required in order that there may be impairment The degree is immaterial. The real test of impairment is the diminution of the value of a contract. i Constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations is not absolute . The constitutional prohibition against impairing ‘contractual obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property or some object of value and which confer rights that may: be asserted in a court of justice; it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. .|t does hot prevent a proper exercise by the State of its police power by enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community, even though contracts may thereby be affected, for such matters cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the State to regulate and Control them. (The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. vs. POEA, 243 SCRA 661); Beltran.vs. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 [2005]). Scanned with CamScanner