[5% - THE A987 "PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER “ By. JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J- Ze 5 ‘Member, 1986 Constifitional' Commission upc oF Lawursral iae SMA AE COPY LAL, GULL 1950 B304 2oil by OAQUIN G. BERNAS, 8.3, ISBN 978-971-23-5906.4 No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, cop. ied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without the written, permission of the author exespt brief paasages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial of othar official proceedings with proper citation, .-Any copy of this book without the corres- Ponding number and the sighatuie of the author on this page either ybyeeds from an illegitimate source origi ihejofone whohasno: prs to eaporabt age . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR No. 2949 \ ‘ iG Rex palnting company, ic. | raphy & Creative Lithography ql io 8, Sto hy ~Reeamble. CONTENTS ARTICLE [- THE NATIONAL TERRITORY Section 1 a. ARTICLE I ~ DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES Principles a Section 1 Section 2 Section 3. Section 4. Seetion 5 Section 6. State Policies Section 7 Section 8 nn Section 9 Section 10. Section 11. Section 12 . Section 13. Section 14. Section 22.Section 45... 0 wl Settion 24. 2 ee Section 25 22 : Section 26 . 2 ne Section 27 2 ts Section 28... 22 k 8 i 98 AXTICLE UI BILL OF RIGHTS I nner 100 . | ea ie 100 Section 1 2 Sudical rove. as Police Power. Py t Protected hii 2% Section 10 io Right to property oa Section 21 = Right to liberty no 28 oe Wo kinds of due process. : BB General Matters.nnunn eal Procedural due process in courts in non-criminal cases... 39 ‘When and in what circumstances the rights Procedural due process in administrative cases 80 are available. oe ‘Substantive due process 32, Circumstances not covered... a Equal protection, 38 Right to be informed of his rights... a pen Right to competent and independent counsel. us ection 2 39 Waiver of rights... a Probable e: at Admissible and inadmissible evidence. ni Personal examination ... Ad Confessions and admissions ...... ws Particlarity of desription “6 ‘Termination of Section 12(1) right us Bxclusionary rule 6 Allowable warrantiess searches 50 ‘Section 12(1), ate) ‘Warrantless arrests... 56 | Section 12(2). pao) Section 13. foe Section 9. 50 Section 14 ur ection : 2 = Due process in criminal cases. sve 187 No prior restraint, 63 Military tribunals. ed mercial speech. 3B Prosumption of innocence. a Subsequent punishment. 6 Right to be heard.. aay Symbolic spench, 18 Right to counsei a Unprotected speech ™ Right to be informed. aan il a ee 1" ight to speedy trial Libel of publie officials and public Agures 6 a ie an ‘impartial trial. 140 Obscenity anc indecency 1 i Right toa public trial crnomen HAL Assembly nd petition, 19 i Right to meet witness face to tace = 142 M4 Section 5... 2 Waterco 68 Non-establishment of religion 83 Section 15 7Section 16.. . M7 Section 17... 148, Section 18... 152 Section 19 . 153 Section 20 159 Section 21 161 Attachment of double jeopardy 161 ‘Termination of jeopardy, 163 Waiver or estoppel 168 Same offense... 169 Appeals.. . 174 Section 22... . 176 ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP Section 1 Section 2... Section 3. Section 4 Section 5 ARTICLE V-SUFFRAGE Section 1... 203 Section 2. 207 ARTICLE VI -THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. Section 2. Section 3 Seetion 4 218 Section § 218 Party-list system. 220 Section 6. 226 Section 7. 228 Section 8. . 229 Section 9 223 Section 10... 230 Section 11. 231 Section 12, Section 18 Section 14 . Section 15 Section 16 . Section 17 . Section 18 . Section 19 ‘Section 20 . Section 21 wn. Section 22. Section 23 . Section 31 .. Section 82. ARTICLE VI.-THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5. Section 18... Section 1 "205 275 217 217 284 284 238 288 288 289 291 292 292 293 294 295 296 296 302 307 a4Section 20 820 Section 21 821 Section 22... 324 Section 28... 825 ARTICLE VIII ~THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Section 1... Section 2 Section 3 Section 4... Section 6... Section 6 vn : Specific powers of the court... 937 Judicial review, . 837 Standing. 339 Taxpayer suit. 341 Political questions... . 343. Court review of capital sentences. 846 Auxiliary power: = 846 Rule making . 347 Section 7 383 Seetion 8 . . 355 Section 9 356 Section 10 356 Section 12 387 Section 12. . 359 Section 13 -. 860 Section 14 . 361 Section 16... 363, Section 16 364 ARTICLE IX- CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS A. Common Provisions Section 1 365 Section 2 365 Seaton 3. 365 ection 4 365 Section 5 366 Section 6 366 Section 7 Section 8 B, The Civil Service Commission Section 1 une Section 2 ‘Scope of the system : Appointments in the Civil Service... Security of tenure... z Abolition of tenure, Partisan political activity. Right to organize. Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6. Section 7... Section 8 ‘The Commission on Elections Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 .. Section 5 ssn Section 6 Section 7 ann Section 8... Section 9 Section 10.. Section 1 ‘The Commission on Audit Section 1 Section 2. Section 3... Section 4 367 370 370 371 372 378 377 380 388 383 384 385, 386 387 389) 391 402 403 405 405 408 406 407 407 408 408 408 412 ALDARTICLE X- LOCAL GOVERNMENT General Provisions Section 1 Section 2. Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 . Section Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12... Section 13 . Section 14 Autonomous Regions Section 15, Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 20 Section 21 436 436 ARTICLE XI- ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 : : Section 12 . sonnei 450 Section 13... Section 14 Section 15. Section 16 .. Section 17. Section 18. Section 1 Section 2 Section 8 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6. Section 7 Section 8... Section 9 Section 10. Section 11. Section 2 Section 18, Section 14. Section 15 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19. Section 20 Section 21 Section 22 Section 1 Section 2... Labor Section 3... ARTICLE XII - NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY ARTICLE XIII - SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 451 495 455 455 455 456 487 458 467 4m . 47 473, 473, 473, 419 479 we 481 - 484 485, 485 435 485 486 486 487 439 490 490 491 491 492Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform Section 7 521 q Section 8 vn snes 523 Section 4 494 i ve 528 eae 44 Section 9. a i Section 6... 500 ‘i 01 eee eae Science and Technology ae 500 Section 10 en a 523 Section 11 523 Urban Land Reform and Housing Section 12... 523 ae oa Section 13 523 Section 10 Arts and Culture Health + Section 14 524 Section 15 524 Section 11... 503 pean 524 Section 12 504 Se 524 Section 18 . 504 eet : - Section 18 524 Wom a Sports Section 14... | Section 19 oecrannnne : poem enna Role and Rights People’s Organizations ARTICLE XV-THE FAMILY ' Section 15. 504 | Section 16 . Boe Section 1 rursnsne — 525 Section 2 525 Human Rights Section 8 526 | | Section 4. ssn 527 | Section 17... 505 i Section 1. 505 ARTICLE XVI - GENERAL PROVISIONS : fection a | » bor Section 1 . 528 { ARTICLE XIV - EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND Section 2 528 | ‘TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS Section 3 ~ 528 { Section 4 586 Education Section 5 536 Section 1 . 508 Section 6 537 Section 2... 511 Section 7 587 Section 3... 512 | Section 8 538 Section 4 513 Section 9 538 Section 5 516 Section 10 538 Section 11 538 Language Section 12. 539 Section 6 .. 521 |ARTICLE XVII - AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS Section 1 BH Section 2 540 Section 3... 540 Section 4... 540 ARTICLE XVIII - TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Section 1 Section 2 552 Section 3 58 Section 4 553 Section 6. Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 . Section 9 Section 10 Section 11... Section 12 Section 13... Section 14 Section 15 Section 16 -... Section 1 Section 18 Section 19 Section 20... Section 2t .. PREAMBLE We, THE SovEREIGN FIUPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE AID OF Atancnry Gop, IN ORDER TO BUILD A JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY [AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT TRAT SHALL, EMBODY QUR IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS, PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND DEVELOP (OUR PATRIMONY, AND SECURE TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND A REGION OF TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY AND PEACE, DO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE THs CONSTITUTION. Q. Whats the function of the Preamble in the Constitution? A. ‘The Preambleisnota source ofrights or of obligations. Jacobson v, Massachussetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905). Because, however, i sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of the Constitution. It is thus a source of light. Q. Whatis the origin, scope and purpose of the Constitution as set out in the Preamble? ‘A. Its origin, of authorship, is tile will of the “sovereign Filipino people.” Its scope and purposé is “to build a just and humane society and to establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and 2 regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.” What is the significance of the use of the grammatical first person “We?” A. The use of the first person stresses the active and sovereign role of the Filipino people as author of the Constitution. The Tanguage thus differs from that of the 1935 Constitution which 1‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER used the third person “The Filipino people,” thereby suggesting that another power was merely announcing that the Filipinos ‘were finally being allowed to promulgate a constitution. Why does the Constitution now say “Almighty God” instead of “Divine Providence,” as the 1925 and 1978 Constitutions did? ‘The phrase “Almighty God” is more personal and more consonant with personalist Filipino religiosity. ‘What is the meaning of “common good” and how does it diffor from the “general welfare” of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions? ‘The phrase “common good" projects the idea of asocial order that enables every citizen to attain his or her fullest development economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually. The phrase “general welfare” was avoided because it could be interpreted as “the greatest good for the greatest number” even if what the greater number wants does violence to human dignity, as for instance when the greater majority might want the extermination of those who are considered inferior. ‘What is the significance of the specification of “equality?” Seemphasizes that a major problem in Philippine society is the prevalence of gross economic and political inequalities. What other significant addition to previous preambles does the new version have? It adds the final phrase “under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace." “Love” is inserted as a monument to the love that prevented bloodshed in the February Revolution, The mention of “truth” is a protest, against the deception which characterized the Marcos regime. And “peace” is mentioned last as the fruit of the convergence of truth, justice, freedom, and love What is the import of “the rule of law?” ‘This expresses the concept that goverument officials have only the authority given them by law and defined by law, arid that such authority continues only with the consent of the people. ‘The statement is: “Ours is @ rule of law and not of men.” ARTICLE | THE NATIONAL TERRITORY SecTION 1. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPLVE ARCHIPELAGO, WITH ALL THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN, AND ‘ALL OTHER TERRITORIES OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNTY (OR JURISDICTION, CONSIBTING OF ITS TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL, AND AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING ITS TERRITORIAL SEA, THE SEARED, THE SUBSOI, ‘THE INGULAR SHELVES, AND OTHER SUBMARINE AREAS. THE WATERS AMOUND, BETWEEN; AND CONNECTING THE ISLANDS OF THE ARCHIPELAGO, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BREADTH AND DIMENSIONS, FORM PART OF THE INTERNAL WATERS OF THE PHILIPPINES. Qa A t ‘What is the force of the assertion of a territorial claim in a constitution? It should be remembered that a constitution is municipal Jaw. As such, it binds only the nation promulgating it. Hence, a definition of national territory in the constitution will bind ‘internationally only if it is supported by proof that can stand in internationat law. Why does the Constitution contain a definition of National Territory? Like the 1985 and 1973 Constitutions, the new Constitution defines the national territory of the Philippines. But the 1935 Constitution’had a very special reason for defining the National Territory. To be effective,'the 1935 Constitution ha: to be accepted by the President of the United States. Since at the time of the adoption of the 1936 Constitution there was still some fear that the United States government might dismember Philippine territory, the delegates to the 1935 Constitution believed that such dismemberment could be forestalled by 3repre ‘THE 1997 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sec.1 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER including a definition of Philippine tezritory in the Constitution. It was argued that aeceptance of the Constitution by the U.S. President would oblige the American government to keep the integrity of Philippine territory as defined in the Constitution. No such special reason compelled the inclusion of a definition of National Territory in the 1973 Constitution, Some delegates, however, argued that.a definition of national territory. should be placed in the constitution for the preservation of the national wealth, for national security, and as a manifestation of our solidarity as a people, More importantly, it was the wish of some to project in the Constitution Philippine adherence to the “archipelagic principle” (which will be discussed below). ‘The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Coramission on the subject repeated much of the discussion of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. In the end there was recognition of the fact that an article on national territory would have an educational value, Moreover, there was apprehension that it would be difficult to explain why after the 1935 and 1973 provisions on the national territory the new Constitution should fail to provide for one. Briefly, what is the scope of the national territory defined in Article I, Section 1? ' It includes: (1) the Philippine archipelago; (2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or Juriadiction; and (8) the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas corresponding to (1) and (2), Moreover, (1) and (2) consist of terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains. What is an archipelago? ‘An archipelago is a body of water studided with islands. Where exactly is the Philippine archipelago situated? ‘The Philippine archipelago is that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, as modified by the Treaty of Washington of November 17, 1900 and the Treaty with Great Britain of January 2, 1930. ‘These are the same treaties that delinosted Philippine territory in Article I of the 1935 Constitution. See.1 ART. — THE NATIONAL TERRITORY 5 If these treaties delineate the Philippine archipelago, why are they not mentioned in the Constitution? ‘The 1973 Constitution omitted specific mention of these treaties because Constitutional Convention delegates wanted to erase every possible trace of our colonial history from the new organic document. The new Constitution follows the lead of the 1973 Constitution. What is included by the clause “al other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction?” ‘This includes any territory which presently belongs or might in the futuro belong to the Philippines through any of the internationally accepted modes of acquiring territory. Foremost among these territories are what ere referred to by the 1935 Constitution as ‘all territory over which the present (1935) Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.” ‘This had reference to the Batanes Islands which, although indisputably belonging to the Philippines, apparently lay outside the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris. Ttalsoincludes what wasreferred to under the 1973 Consti- tution as territories “belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title,” that is, other territories which, depending on available evidence, might belong to the Philippines (e., Sabah, the Marianas, Freedomland). By dropping the phrase “belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title” has not the Constitution in effect dropped the Philippine claim to Sabah? No, it as not. It has, however, avoided the use of language historically offensive to Malaysia and hasused instead theclause “over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.” The clause neither claims nor disclaims Sabah. It prescinds from an evaluation of the strength of the Philippine claim. The formula is a recognition of the fact that unilateral assertions in a constitution, which is maunicipal law, by themselves do not establish an international right to a territory, @ Were the US. military bases in the Philippines still part of Philippine territory? ; A. Definitely. The precise reason why the Philippine government could ede part of its authority over these bases to the United2 Pe ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: see.1 ‘A. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER ‘States was the fact that they were part of the Philippine territory ‘over which the government exercised savereign control. Reagan 1. Commissioner, 80 SCRA 968 (1969); People v. Gozo, £8 SCRA 476 (1973), ‘What is the extent of the Philippine claim to its aerial domain, territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas? The Philippines lays claim to them to the extent recognized by international law. The definition of these areas and right of the Philippines over these areas are provided for in customary and conventional international law, principally the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944, ‘What is the special claim mace by the Philippines with respect to the “waters around, between and connecting the islarids of the archipelago?” The Philippines claims them as part of its “internal waters” irrespective of their breadth and dimension. This is one of the elements of the archipelagic principle which is now recognized by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, What is the other element of the archipelagic principle? The other elementiis the straight baseline method of dalineating the territorial sea. This consists of drawing straight lines ‘connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to ‘any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. ‘These baselines divide the internal waters from the territorial waters of an archipelago. Does the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea accept the entirety of the Philippine position on the archipelagie principle. Not exactly. The vast areas of water between islands which the Philippines considers internal waters and therefore not subject to the right of innocent passage) the 1982 Convention calls “archipelagic waters” subject to the right of innocent passage through passages designated by the archipelago concerned. ‘Has the Philippines recognized this distinction? No, because it is contrary to what Article I says about these waters being internal. For this reason, the Philippines ratified 2 ART. — THE NATIONAL TERRITORY 7 the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea with reservations, ‘However, in practical terms the Philippines has designated sea lanes for foreign vessels. ‘What are baselines? t 5 ib yr mark of an Baselines are lines drawn albng the low water mark island or group of islands which mark the end of the internat ‘waters and the beginning of the territorial sea. Each country ‘must draw its own baselines according to the provisions of the Law of the Sea. ‘What is our Baseline Law? R.A, 9522, This law provides for one baseline around the ‘archipelago and separate baselines for the “regime of islands’ voatside the archipelago.a A ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES What is the function of the “Declaration of Principles and Ste Policies” in the Constitution? : 2 The ‘Declaration of Principles and State Policies*is a statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie the Constitution. As such, the provisions shed light on the meahing of the other provisions of the Constitution and they are a guide for all departments of the government in the )lementat of the Constitution. aa sion PRINCIPLES Section 1. Tae Pumsrprves 18 A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AND ALL. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY EMANATES FROM THEM, a A Define a “state” and enumerate its elements. Itis acommunity of personsmore or less numerous, permanc ostupying a definite portion of territory, independonterextereel control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. Hence, commentators break down the concept into the following four elements: people, territory, sovereignty, govern: (Montevideo Convention of 1983) eae Distinguish “state” from “nation.” Although for the purpose of politica sociology a state, which is a legal concept, may be distinguished from nation, which an ethnic concept, for the purpose of constitutional law the two terms are not distinct. The Constitution uses them 8 A pe ART. Il — DECLARATION)OF PRINCIPLES: 9 AND STATE POLICIES i interchangeably to designate the legal concept of state as defined above. Define “people.” As an element of a state, “people” simply means a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law. It is of no legal consequence if they possess diverse racial, cultural, or economic interests. Define sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative, executive or judicial action. This is lodged in the people but is normally exercised by state agencies. Stated in terms of auto-limitation, sovereignty “is the property of state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-testriction.” (Jellinek). Political sovereignty is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course of law. Define “government.” Government, as an element of a state, is defined as “that ‘institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who ‘possess the power or authority of prescribing them.” How were the functions of government classified in Bacani v. ‘Nacoco, 100 Phil. 468 (1956)? ‘The functions of government were classified intoconstituent and ‘inistrant functions. The former are the compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of society. For example, the keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery, or the fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children are obligatory or constituent functions of government. Ministrant functions are the optional functions of govern ‘ment, “The principles for determaining whether or not a govern- ‘ment shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: (1)10 ze 2 re ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER that a goverament should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do those things which by its very nature itis better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuale.” Is this classification still valid? ‘The conceptual definitions of constituent and ministrant function are stil! acceptable, However, the growing complexities of modern society can necessitate a realignment, ACCFA v. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649 (1969). Among more recent decisions, housing has been found to be a governmental function since housing is considered an essential service. PHHC v. Court of Industrial Relations, 150 SCRA 296, 310 (1987), But undertaking to supply water fora price, as does the government corporation National Irrigation Authority, is considered a trade and not a governmental activity. Spouses Fontanilla v. Hon. Maliaman, GR, Nos. 55963 & 61045, February 27, 1991. How are governments classified agcording to their legitimacy? According to legitimacy, governments are either de jure or de facto merely. A government de jure is one established by authority of the legitimate sovereign whereas a government de facto merely is one established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign, Classify de facto governments. There are several kinds of de facto governments. ‘The first is that government that gets possession and vontrol of, or usurps, by force or by the voiee of the majority, ‘The second is that which is established and maintained by invading military forces. And the third is that established as an independent gov- ernment by the inhabitants of a country who rise in ingurrec. tion against the parent state, such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union during’ the {yar of secession. Co Kim Cham Valdes Tan Keh, 5 Phil. 113 1945). Was the government under Cory Aquino and the Freedom Constitution a de jure government? Sen.1 ART, I! ~ DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES n AND STATE POLICIES ‘Yes, because it was established by authority of the legitimate sovereign, the people. It was a revolutionary government established in defiance of the 1978 Constitution. In re Letter of Associate Justice Puno, 210 SCRA 589,598 (1992) Was the government under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo estab- lished after the ouster of President Hstrada de jure or de facto merely? De jure. See materials under Article VI, Section 8. ‘What law governed the revofutionary government under Aquino? ‘The resulting government was indisputably 2 revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law. During the interregaum from February 25, 1986 to March 24, 1986 before the Freedom Constitution took effect by presidential proclamation, the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not. operative. However, the protection accorded to individuals tnder the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration remained jn effect under international law during the interregnum Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 104768, July 21, 2003. Describe the presidential form of government. Its principal identifying feature is what ia called the “separation of powers.” Legislative power is given to the Legislature whose members hold office fora fixed term: executive power is given to a separate Executive who also holds office for a fixed term; and judicial power is held by an independent Judiciary. The gystem is founded on the belief that, by establishing equilibrium among the three power holders, harmony will result, power will not, be concentrated, and thus tyranny will be avoided. Because of the prominent position, however, which the system gives to the President as chief executive, it is designated as a presidential form of government. ‘What are the essential characteristics of a parliamentary form of government? They are the following: (1) The members of the governinent or cabinet or the executive arm are, a8 a rule, simultaneously2 — THE 1987 PHLIEPINE CONSTITUTION: See. ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER members of the legislature; (2) the government or cabinet, consisting ofthe political leaders of the majority party or of coalition who are also members of the legislature, is in effect 8 committee of the legislature; (3) the government or cabinet has a pyramidal structure at the apex of which is the Prime ‘Minister or his equivalent; (4) the government or cabinet remains in power only for as long as it enjoys the support of the majority of the legislature; (6) both government and legislature are possessed of control devices with which each can demand of the other immediate political responsibility. In the hands of the legislature is the vote of non-confidence (censure) whereby government may be ousted, In the hands of government is the Power to dissolve the legislature and call for new elections, What constitutional forms of government have been experi- enced by the Philippines since 1936? Presidential and presidential only. Even the government of Presiaent Marcos under the 1973 Constitution, as revised in 1981, had the distinguishing marks ofa presidential form of Government: (1) separation of powers and (2) the preeminence of the President. The President was “head of state and chief executive” (VII, 1); he inherited the powers of the President under the 1985 Constitution (VII, 16); he was superior to the Prime Minister by the fact that he nominated the Prime Minister (IX, 1), approved the program of government to be administered by the Prime Minister (IX, 2), terminated the term of the Prime Minister when he nominated the successor (IX, 4), and could delegate powers to the Prime Minister. He also had control over the ministries (VII, 7). Moreover, while there was closer relationship between the executive and the legislature (an understatement!), thus manifesting “features of parliamentarism,” there was separation hebween them, Separation from the Judiciary also conceptually remained. Free Telewhane Workers Union v. Minister of Labor, 108 SCRA 157 (October 80, 1981). ‘What is a “republican state?” A republican state is a state wherein all government authority ‘emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people, See, 2 NATIONAL, POLICY, ART. Il - DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES 18 AND STATE POLICIES Why is the Philippines also called a “democratic state” by the new Constitution? In the view of the new Constitiition the Philippines is not only a representative or republican state but also shares some aspects of direct democracy such as “initiative and referendum in Article VI, Section $2, and Article XVII, Section 2. The word “democratic” is also monument to the February Revolution which re-won freedom through direct action of the people. “ janism” and is it Q What is “constitutional authoritari compatible with a “republican state? itutional authoritarianism,” as understood and prac in the Maro rine under the 1972 Conan, was the ateumyon of xray nes hy the Posen, ning Iegalatve and judicial and even oonatiunst power. Const suthortianism is compotble with a rpubliean state if the Canattion upon which the Executive bass eaumpton of power i leitiate expen of the perl’ wil athe Brest ‘ho amrumer power fesived hin es thvugh ald lin bythe people. How do state, government and administration differ from each other? ate entity, governmentiis one of the elements Ste site an8 iy tho dnsdtaton through which the state exercises power; administration consists of the set of people currently running the institution. Administrations change without a change in either state or government. How are these affected by political changes? e 1973 The transitions from the 1935 Constitution to the 197: Constitution, and from the 1975 Constitution to the 1987 Constitution involved changes of government but not of state ‘The transition from President Estrada to President Arroyo did not involve a change of government but only of administration, Sec. 2, THR PHILIPPINES RENOUNCES WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF \W OF THE LAND AND ADHERES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AS PART OF THE LAW 0} ‘THE POLICY OF PEACE, EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, COOPERATION, AND AMIITY WITT ALL NATIONS.“ ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Sve. 8 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER @ What kind of war is renounced by the Philippines? A, Aggressive, not defensive, war. @ What are the generally accepted principles of international Taw? > Among the principles of international law acknowledged by the Court as part of the law of the land are: the right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting deportation when his failure to leave the country is due to the fact that no country will accept hita, Mejoffv. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951), the ight of a country to establish military commissions to try war criminals, Kuroda v. Jialandoni, 89 Phil. 171 (1949). Some generally accepted principles have been incorporated in treaties. Zg., the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, Agustin v, Edu, 88 SCRA 195, 213 (1979); the duty to brotect the premises of embassies and legations, J.BLL. Reyes . Bogatsing, G.R. No, 65866, October 25, 1983. Does the affirmation of amity with all nations mean automiatie Alplomatic recognition of all nations? A. No, Amity with all nations is an ideal to be aimed at, Diplomatic recognition, however, remains a matter of executive discretion, ‘Sec. 8. Crviuian AUTHORITY 18, AT ALL TIMES, SUPREME OVER THE ‘MILITARY. TE ARDIED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES 18 THE PROTECTOR OF ‘THE PEOPLE AND THE STATR. ITS GOAL I8 TO SECURE TUE SOVEREIGNTY oF ‘Tie STATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF 3H NATIONAT. TERRITORY, Q How is the principle of civilian supremacy institutionalized? A. The principle is institutionalized by the provision which makes the President, a civilian and precisely as civilian, commander. in-chief of the armed forces. But this does not mean that civilian officials are superior to military officials. Civilian officials are superior to military officials oniy when a law makes them so, What is the reason for the existence of the armed forces? A. They exist in onder to secure the sovereignty of the State, and to preserve the integrity of the national territory. In extraordinary circumstances they may also be called upon te protect the people when ordinary law and order forces need assistance, 1 en Ant: 1 ~ DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES came AND STATE POLICIES Sto, 4, Tue PRIME Dury oF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE AND PROTECY THE PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT MAY CALL UPON THE PEOPLE ‘TO DEFEND THE STATE AND, IN THE FULFILLMENT THEREOF, ALL CITIZENS MAY BE REQUIRED, UNDER CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, TO RENDER ‘PERSONAL. MILITARY OR CIVIL SERVICE. @. How does the first sentence differ from its counterpart in the 1973 Constitution? A. The 1973 and the 1935 versions spoke of the “defense” of the State being a prime duty of government. It therefore easily lent itself to interpretations which justified a national security state offensive to the people. The present version places the emphasis on service to and protection of the people. ‘The phrase ‘under conditions provided by law" in the second sentence also emphasizes the primacy of serving the interest of the people and protecting their rights even when there is need to defend the State. Section 6, below, also has 2 similar emphasis. ‘Sec. 6, THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER, THE PROTECTION OF LIVE, LIRERTY, AND PROPERTY, AND THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL \WELVARE ARE ESSENTIAL POR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY. ‘Sec. 6, Tut SEPARATION oF CituncH AND STATE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE. Q. What is the meaning of the inviolability of the separation of Church and State? A. See Article III, Section 5. STATE POLICIES Seo. 7, Tie STATE SHALL PURSUE AN INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY. IN 178 RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION SHALL BE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL, INTEGRITY, NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE RIGHT 70 SELF-DETERMINATION, What is the general characteriti of the provisions protecting rights in Article II? i ~ ee A. In general they are not self-executing provisions. They need implementing acts of Congress. Thus, when some provisions ne ce rent Se ecu16 ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: See.8 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER of the Health Sector Reform Agenda were challenged onthe ground that they violated 15, 18 of Article Il; Section 1 of Article III; Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII; and Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the 1987 Constitution, which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of the State to protect, and promote the people's right to health and well-being, the Court clarified that provisions are not selfexecuting. They require implementing legislation* Q._ Inthe conduct ofthe nation’s foreign relations, what principles must guide the government? A. The government must maintain an independent foreign policy and give paramount consideration to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and gelf-determination. Sec. 8. Ti PHILIPPINES, CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTER- BST, ADOPTS AND PURSUES A POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM NUCLEAR WEAP- ONS IN ITS TERRITORY. Q. What is the constitutional poliey on nuclear weapons? A. The Constitution prescribes a policy of freedom from nuclear ‘weapons. The policy includes the prohibition not only of the possession, control, and manufacture of nuclear weapons but also nuclear arms tests, Exception to this policy may be made by the political departments; but it must be justified by the demands of the national interest. (“consistent with the national interest.”) But the policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Q. What is the implication of this policy for the presence of American troops or for any American military base that might be established in the Philippines? A. Any new agreement on bases or the presence of troops, if ever there is one, must embody the basic policy of freedom from nuclear weapons. Moreover, it would be well within the power of government to demand ocular inspection and removal of nuclear arms, a] Center Employnes v. CA, G.R. No, 167324, July 17,2007 Sees. 9:12 ART, Il — DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES " AND STATE POLICIES Sec. 9, Tur: STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL ENSURE THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OP THE NATION AND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL SERVICES, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A [RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. ‘Sec. 10, Tue StATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES. (OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Q. What are the underlying premises of Sections 9 and 10? A. They derive from the premises that poverty and gross inequal- ity are major problems besetting the nation and that these problems assault the dignity of the human person. 2 What is social justice? A. Social justice, in the sense it is used in the Constitution, simply means the equalization of economic, political, and social ‘opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the disadvantaged in life. Inthe language ofthe 1985 Convention, it means justice for the common tao; in the shibboleth of the 1973 Convention, ‘those who have less in life must have more in law. @. What has been the special impact of the social justice provision {in Philippine jurisprudence? ‘A. The provision has been chiefly instrumental in the socialization of the state's attitude to property rights thus gradually eradicating the vestiges of laissez faire in Philippine society. @. How is the promotion of socia} justice to be carried out in all phases of national development? A. See Article XU Sec. 11. Tum SrATE VALUES THE DIGNITY OF EVERY HUMAN PERSON AND GUARANTEES FULL RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Seo. 12. THE rare xEcoGNIZES THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE AND SWALL PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN THE FAMILY AS A BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION. Ir SHALL EQUALLY PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND THE LIFE OF TH UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION. 'THE NATURAL AND PRIMARY RIGHT AND DUTY OF PARENTS IN THE REARING OF THE YOUTH FOR18 ‘VHE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ‘See. 18 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER (CIVI¢ EFFICIENCY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL CHARACTER SHALL [RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF THE GovENNMENT. See. 18. Tar StATE RECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF THE YOUTH IN NATION-BUSLDING AND SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THEIR PHYSICAL, MORAL, SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING. IT SHALL. INCULCATE IN THE YOUTH PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM, AND ENCOURAGE ‘THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC )ND CIVIC AFFAIRS, Q. Whats the meaning of “family” in Section 12? A. It simply means a stable heterosexual relationship. Q. What effect does the declaration of family autonomy have? ‘A. It accepts the principle that the family is anterior to the State and is not a creature of the State. It protects the family:from instrumentalization by the State. Q. What is the legal meaning and purpose of the protection that is guaranteed for the unborn? ‘A. First, this isnot an assertion that the unborn is a legal person. Second, this is not an assertion that the life of the unborn is placed exactly on the level of the life of the mother. When necessary to save the life of the mother, the life of the unborn ray be sacrificed; but not when the purpose is merely to save the mother from emotional suffering, for which other remedies must be sought, or to spare the child from a life of poverty, which can be attended to by welfare institutions. Q. _ Whyis the protection made to begin from the time of conception? A. The overriding purpose in asserting that the protection begins from the time of conception is to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first six months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother, The understanding is that-tife begins at conception, although the definition of conception can be a matter for science to apecify. Incidentally, the respect for life manifested by the pro- vision harmonizes with the abolition of the death penalty and the ban on nuclear arms. See. 14 ART. Il — DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES 19 AND STATE POLICIES Q. In the matter of education, how do the respective rights of parents and of the State compare? A. The primary and natural right belongs to the parents. The Constitution affirms the primary right of parents in the rearing of children to prepare them for a productive civic and social life and at the same time it affirms the secondary and supportive role of the State. The principle is also rooted in the basic philosophy of liberty guaranteed by the due process clause. Q.__ May the state prohibit the teaching of foreign languages to children before they reach a cortsin age? ‘A. Such restriction does violence to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 890 (1922) @. May the State require children to attend only public schools before they reach a certain age? ° A. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which the govern- ‘ment under the Constitution reposes excludes any general power of the State to standardize its cha}dren by farcing them to accept instruc tion from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for addi- onal obligations. Pere v. Society of Sisters, 262 U.S. §10 (1925. Q. May the State require children to continue schooling be- yond a certain age even against the honest and sincere claim of par- tents that such schooling would be harmful to their religious upbring- ing? A. No. Only those interests of the state “of the highest order ‘and those not otherwise served can overbalancs” the primary interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children. Wisconsin v Yoder, 40 LW 4476 (May 15, 1972). @ Does all this mean that the State cannot intervene in the relation of parent and child? A. No. Ae parens patriae the State has the authority and duty to step in where parents fail to or are unable to cape with their duties to their children, ‘Sec. 14, THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN NATION- ‘BUILDING, AND SHALL ENSURE THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW OF WOMEN AND MEN,20 ‘TH 1967 PHILIPEINE CONSTITUTION; Secs, 16-17 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER @ Does this provision repeal the inequalities that are found in the Civil Code? ‘A. The provision is so worded as not to automatically disloeate the Civil Code and the civil law jurisprudence on the subject. What it does is to-give impetus to the removal, through statutes, of existing inequalities. The general idea is for the law to ignore sex where sex is not a relevant factor in determining rights and duties. Nor is the provision meant to ignore customs and traditions Sec. 15. Tux StaTR SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT ro MBALTH OF THE PEOPLE AND INSTILL HEALTH CONSCIOUSMISS AMONG TaN, Sec. 16. Tum StaTs SHALL PROTECT AND APVANCE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO A BALANCED AND NEALTHIUL ECOLOGY IN ACCORD WITH ‘THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OP NATURE, Q Does Section 16 provide for enforceable rights? A. Yes, This provision, as worded, recognizes an enforveable “right.” Hence, appea? to it has heen recognized as conferring “standing” on minors to challenge loggimg policien of the government. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792. (1993), On this basis too the Supreme Court upheld the empow- ferment of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake Area from the deleteri- Gus effects of pollutants coming from garbage dumping and the discharge of wastes in the area as against the local au- tonomy claim of local governments in the area, Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120865. 71, December 7, 1995. Significantly, too, by authority of Section 16 embodying the people's right to a balanced ecology and under vanous Statutes, several government agents were required by mon. damus to undertake the cleaning of Manila Bay and its surroundings. MMDA 2, Residents of Manila Bay, G-R. No. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, Seo. 17. Tam Stare SHALL GIvE PRIORITY TO EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS 70 POSTE PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM» ACCELKRATE SOCIAL, PROGRESS, AND PROMOTE TOTAL HUMAN LIBERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Secs.1822 ART: II — DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES: a AND STATE POLICIES i innot free NOTE: This does not mean that the government is not to balance the demands of education against other competing and urgent demands. ‘See, 18. THE SrATE AFFIRMS LABOR AS A PRIMARY SOCIAL ECONOMIC PONCE. It SHALL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKEHS AND PROMOTE THEIR WELFARE, a A ‘What is meant when labor is called “a primary social economie force?” It means that the human factor has primacy over the non- human factors in production. NOTE: The rights of labor are discussed under Article XH. ‘Sec. 19, Tux STATE SHALL DEVELOP A SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPEN- DENT NATIONAL ECONOMY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY FiLtPINos. a A How is this provision related to the article on the National Economy and Patrimony? national This is a guide for interpreting provisions on the nat economy and patrimony. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of self-reliance and independence and in favor of Filipinos. Sec. 20, Tae STATE RECOGNIGES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF ‘THE PRIVATE SECTOR, ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS. Sec. 21. THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE COMPREHENSIVE RURAL, [DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM. Q@ A How comprehensive must rural development be? It includes not only agrarian reform. It also encompasses a broad spectrum of social, ecorsmic, human, cultural, political, and even industrial development, NOTE: Agrarian reform is discussed under Article X11 Sec, 22, Tae STATE RECOGNIZES AND PROMOTES THE RIGHTS (OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF [NATIONAL UNITY AND DEVELOPMENT.2 ‘THE 1997 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ‘Ses, 23.28, ‘ACOMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER NOTE: Indigenous cultural communities are discussed ‘under the National Economy and Patrimony and under Local Governments. Sec, 23. THe STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE NON-GOVERNMENTAL, CONOIUNTTY-BASED, OR SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE 7HE WELPARE OF THE NATION ‘Sec, 24, Tae SpATERECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION Its NATION-BULLDING, Sec. 25. THe STATE SHALL ENSURE THE AUTONOMY OF LOCAT GOVERNMENTS. NOTE: See Article X. Sec. 26, Tue STATE SHALL GUARANTEE EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPOR- ‘TUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES AS MAY BE DEFINED By LAW. Q. What is the purpose of this provision? ‘A. Its purpose is to give substance to the desire for the equalization of political opportunities. However, the definition of “political dynasties” is Left to the legislature. Q. Does this provision mean that everyone has a right to be a candidate for President? A. No.Firstofall, this provision is not selfexecutory. The provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional sight but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. Secondly, it is within the power of the state to limit the umber of guelified candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. Pamatong v. Comelec, G.R. No, 161872, April 13, 2004. ‘Sec, 27. Tar Stave SHALL MAINTAIN HONESTY AND INTEGRITY 1 PUBLIC SERVICE AND TAKE POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION. NOTE: See Article XI. Sec. 28. SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS PRESCRIRED BY LAW, THE STATE ADOPTS AND IMPLEMENTS & POLICY OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OP ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST. ARTICLE Ill BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1. No PERSON SHALL He DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBENTY OR PROPERDY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF ‘LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LARS. Q. Whatiis the significance of the Bill of Rights? ‘A. - Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyranni- cal. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are ceréain ar, tas of a person's life, liberty, and property which governmental power may not touch. ‘What powers of government are limited by the Bill of Rights? Al the powers of government are limited by the Bill of Rights. ‘What in general are these powers? ‘The totality of governmental power is contained in three great powers: police power, power of eminent domain, and power of taxation. rere “Why are these powers considered inherent powers? ent and Because they belong to the very essence of government A BeGhout them no government can exist. A constitution an only Qefine and delimit them and allocate their exercise among Various government agencies. A constitution does not grant them. e intees of the Bill . Name one major difference between the guarantees of th Nshights and the guarantees hat are found im Article KIT on Social Justice ‘A. The Bill of Rights focuses on civil and political rights, whereas “Article XBMI focuses on social and economic rights. Moreover, 23* ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: See.1 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER the guarantees in the Bill of Rights are generally self-imple- ‘menting, ic, they can be appealed to even in the absence of implementing legisiation. On the other hand, the social and economic rights guaranteed in Article XIII as also recognized in Article IT generally require implementing legislation. Police power Q A ‘What is “police power?” Police power has been characterized as “the most essential, {insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the groat public needs.” Negatively, it has been defined as “that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety; and welfare of society.” Hrmita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, L-24698, July 81, 1967 ‘What is the scope of police power? Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the State and of the public to self-protection, For this reason, its scope expands and contracts with changing needs, CAwichill v. Rafferty, 82 Phil. 580, 602-608 (1915). ‘Who exercises police power? ‘The national government, through the legislative department, exercises police power. But police power is also delegated, within limits, to local governments. @ Does Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) pos- sess police power? A. No. Not boing a political subdivision but merely an exeeu- tive authority it has no police power. Police power in Metro Manila is ‘exercised by the cities and municipalities. MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoe., GAR. No. 135962, March 27, 2000, Q. May a municipality be prevented by COA from giving burial assistance to indigents? A. Police power is a broad concept covering efforts to contri- bute to the comfort of the public. Mareaver, the fact that not all receive the dole out does not make it less public because the drift of the baw is in the direction of public welfare and socil justice. Binay v. Domingo, GR. No. 92389, September 11, 1991. See. ‘ART. Tit ~ BILL OF RIGHTS 25 Q. May the stave prohibit gambling? ‘A. The state may do 20, if it s0 chooses, and make violation criminal offense, But gambling is not immoral per se, Magtajas v Price Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (199). @. _Isthe lew ordering the closure of commercial bloodbanks vali? 'A. Yes. tis a valid exercise police power to protest public health, Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 188640, Novernber 25, 2008; she teeta ils enn ey es Se i ee Ie aha std es Or ‘A. Franchises are subject to police power and the mandatory rile is not a form of taking but a form of police power regulation TIBS-CBN Broadeasting Corporation v. PMSI, G.R. Nos. 175769-70, ‘January 19, 2009. 5 Protected rights; life @ A What rights are protected by the Bill of Rights? In very general terms, the right to life, liberty and property’ ‘The manner of protecting these is elucidated in subsequent Sections. What is the right to “life?” ‘The constitutional protection of the right to life is not just a proizction ofthe right to be alivear othe security fonds i ‘Against physical harm. The right to life is the right to a goo life, The emphasis on the quality of living is found in Article TI where Section 6 commands the State to promote a life of “dignity” and where Section 7 guarantees “a decent standard ofliving” @ Do the unborn have a constitutional right to life? AL See Article Il, Section 12.36 ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE coysTuTUTION: See.1 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER Right to property What does “property” include? A. Protected property includes all kinds of property found in the Civil Code. It has been deemed to include vested rights such as a perfected mining claim, or a perfected homestead, or a final judgment. It also includes the right to work and the right to eam a living. A license to operate a cockpit is not considered protected property. It is deemed merely a privilege withdrawable when public interest require its withdrawal In like manner it has been ruled that a certificate of public convenience granted to a transportation company confers’ no Property right on the route covered thereby. A mere privilege, however, may evolve into some form of Property right protected by due process, as for instance when a privilege, in this case an export quota, has been enjoyed for so long, has been the subject of substantial investment and has become the source of employment for thousands, Amerioan Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office of the President, 197 SCRA. 409 (1991). @. Is one's employment, profession, or trade “property” pro- tected by the Constitution? A. Yes, Thus, an order of preventive suspension without opportunity for hearing at all violates property right. Crespo Provincial Board, 160 SCRA 66 (1988) QA law limiting deployment of overseas workers to skilled ‘workers only was challenged as vialative of the right to work. Decide, No right is absolute, and the proper regulation ofa profes- sion, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the atate particu larly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate gov *mnmental functions, the preservation of the State, the publie health and welfare and. public morals. Executive Secretary v. CA, GR. No, 181719, May 25, 2004. Q, May the license of harbor pilots be cancelled without a hearing? A, No: Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., G.R. No. 111953, 283 SCRA SI, 43, @.__ When property is classified into historical treasures or landmarks, should such classification be done with both procedural and substantive due process? ART. II — BILL OF RIGHTS 2 A shen classification “will involve imposition of limits fon ownership.” Army and Navy Club of Manila, Ine. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 110228, April 8, 1997. Do life and property enjoy identical protection from the Cons- titution? No..The primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and, vitality of our civil and political institutions. “The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that q mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to validate a law which restriets or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires ‘a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.” Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 50 SCRA 189, 202-8 (1973). Glaxo Wellcome has a policy against employees marry- ing employees of competitor companies, This is well known to and is accepted by employees. An employee who, after repeated warnings, violated this rule by marrying an employee of Astra, a competitor company, was dismissed. He challenges the policy as a violation of the right to marry. Decide. ‘A. Glaxo has aright to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and ‘information from competitors. Glaxo and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry, Duncan Association of Employees Employees v. Glaxo Wellcome, GR. No. 162994, September 17, 2004. Whare, however, there is n0 reasonable necessity illegal. Star Paper v. Simbol, G.R. No, 164774, What is the nature of the right to collect from a pension plan? A. _ Ina pension plan where employee participation is manda- tory, the prevailing view is that employees have contractual or vested i8 ‘Tite 1987 PRILIPPINe CONSTITUTION: See.1 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER ‘rights inthe pension where the pension is part of the terms of em: ployment. Thus, where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested property right to benefits that is Protected by the due process clause, GSIS 2: Mondesclaros, G.R. No. 166494, July 14, 2004, A law that orders discontinuance of a pension of a yetired ‘military officer if he becomes a citizen of another country was held ‘ot to violate equal protection. Pension of military retirees te purely ‘sratuitous. Parreri c. COA, G.R, No. 162224, June 7, 2007. Right to liberty Q. The military detainees question the correctness of the restriction on contact visits Bell v. Wolfish, upheld the blanket restriction on contact visits as Spear cae aes Start oe se = See eames August 25, 2005. ” one Moreover, where the only limitation imposed upon police ‘offi- on ee ee rete Initored, that they have fo be ettorted whenever the creuasancen Zeacanetertaey oy ay eerie ation of liberty. Manalov. PNP Chief, G.R. No. 148820, October 15, Do people have the right to bear arms? A. _No. Only those authorized by law may bear arms. Even, ‘the provision in the American Constitution has teference only to a collective right of militia to bear arms. No similar provision ia found in our Constitution. United States vx, Villareal, 28 Phil. 390 (1914), Chaves v, Executive Seoretary, G.R. No. 167086, June 9, 2004, Two kinds of due process Q A ‘What are the tivo aspects of due process? Due process has both a procedural and a substantive aspect, As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws; because, if all that ‘the due process clause See. ARD, TI — BILL OF RIGHTS ea required were proper procedure, then life, liberty, or property could be destroyed arbitrarily provided proper formalities are observed, ‘As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness. Tis esserice was expressed by Daniel Webster as a “law which hears before it condemns.” Procedural due process in courts in non-criminal cases a A ‘What are the essential requirements of procedural due provess in courts? ‘These are: (1) There must be a court or tribunal elothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Banco Espatiol Filipino v. Palanca, 87 Phil. 921, 934 (1918). Procedural due process in criminal cases is treated in Section 14 below. ‘The details of procedural due process for both criminal ‘and non criminal cases are spelled out in the Rules of Court. Q. Docs an extraditae heve a right of access to the evidence against him? A. _ Daring the executive phase of an extradition proceeding ‘an extradites doos not have the right of access to evidence in the hhands of government. But during the judicial phase he has. Secretary v. Judge Lantion, G-R. No, 139465, October 27, 2000. Q Does a teacher ina school administrative proceeding have a right to be assisted by counsel? A. Yes, Duo provogs-demands this, Gonzales v, NLRC and Ateneo de Davao, G.R. No, 125735, August 26, 1999. (Compare this with due process for students in Judge Dares.) Q. When is a law to “vague” as not to satisfy the due process need for notice? A. _It is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that ‘men ‘of comman intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ‘See. ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER and differ as to its application” It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in earrying out is provisions and becomes an arbitrary flesng of the Government But to be unconstitutional the law must be utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it cannat be clarified by either a saving clause or by construction. People v. Nazario, 165 SCRA 186 (1988); People v. de 1a Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, January 24, 2001. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of ‘terms without defining them; much less do we have to define every ‘word we use. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or statutory ‘command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in ‘an enetment. ‘The Plunder Lew under which former resident Estrada’ is being prosecuted is not vague. The words “series” and “combination” of erimes can be understood in their ordinary meaning. Estrada v, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No, 148560, November 19, 2001. Q- Article 202 of the Pensl Code defines vagranta thus “Any person found loitering about public or semi-publie buildings or places or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of aupport. ..” The law prohibiting vagrancy is challenged as vague, ‘A. The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. This is not such a Jaw. Romualdes v. Comalec, 2R.No. 167011, December 11, 2008. Procedural due process in administrative cases a ‘What are the essential requirements of procedural due process before administrative agencies? Briefly, the following are required: “(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one’s rights; (8) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and 50 constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and See.1 ART. HE BILL OF RIGHTS aL (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidenes submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained the records of made known to the perties affected.’ Fabella v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 110379, November 28, 1997, 282 SCRA 256, 267 (citing Air Manila, Inc. v. Balatbat, 38 SORA 489, 492 [1971D; Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940). Q Is publication a requirement of due process? ‘A. Yes, The role that requires publication for the effectivity of laws applies not only to statutes but olso to presidential decrees fand executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers Whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. ‘Adminiatrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Republic v. Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 173038, April 8, 2008. @._ Is. respondent in an administrative case entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating ‘committee created to inquire into charges filed? A. No.Heisentitled only to the administrative decision based ‘onsubstantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and tho evidence presented against him during the hearing of the investigation committee. It is the administrative resolution, not the investigation report, which should be the basis of ‘any further remedies that the losing party in an administrative case ‘might wish to pursue. Pefianco v. Moral, G.R. No. 138248, January 19, 2000. @ What quantum of proof is need in administrative procecd- ings? ‘A. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof re- ‘quired is-only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means such Televant evidence az a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to seupport a conclusion. ‘Are notice and hearing always required in administrative proceedings? In quasi-judicial proceedings, yes; but in the performance of ‘executive or legislative functions, such as issuing internal rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of noticp and hearing.32 ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: Bee. 1 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER @. Without conducting any hearing the National Telecom- ‘munications Commission ordered PHILCOMSAT to reduce ita rates, by 18%. Valid? A. Changing existing rates is quasi-judicial in nature, Hence, it must be preceded by a hearing. The fact of the order being merely interlocutory does not alter the situation because for all practical purposes it is final as to the period covered, PHILCOMSAT v. Alewaz, GAR. No, 84818, December 18, 1989, Q. Police officer Torcita was charged on twelve counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. The twelve counts were dismissed but he was convicted of Simple Irregularity in the Performance of Duty of having aleohol in his breath, Proper? A. No. While the definition of the more serious offense is broad, and almost all-encompassing, a finding of guilt for an offense, nno matter how light, for which one is not properly charged and tried cannot be countenanced without violating the rudimentary Toquirements of due process. Summary Dismissal Board v, Toreita, GR. No. 190442, April 6, 2000. NOTE: See also cases on schools under Article XIV, Section 4. @_ What kind of due process is required in deportation proceodings? A. Although deportation proceedings are not criminal in nature, the consequences ean be as serious as those of a criminal prosecution. The provisions in the Rules of Court for criminal cases are applicable. Lao Gi alias Chia, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81789, December 29, 1989, Substantive due process a A When do laws which interfere with life, liberty, or property satisfy substantive due process? To justify the State in interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, (1) that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular lass, require such interference; and, (2) that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual ‘and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations, United States v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85 (1910). Bee.1 ART. it — BILL OF RIGHTS 33 Is the requirement of substantive due process a rigid concept? Definitely not. The heart of substantive due process is the requirement of “reasonableness,” or absence of exercise of arbitrary power, These are necessarily relative concepts which depend on the circumstances of every case. What is the presumption when the State acts to interfere with life, iberty, or property? Generally, the presumption is that the action is valid. (In rare cases, however, as in the imposition of “prior restraint,” to be discussed undor Section 4, there is a presumption of invalidity). Is the allowable scope of reasonable interference with property the same as that with life or liberty? No, See Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v Philippine Blooming Mills, supra. Rarely has a law interfering merely with property rights been declared unconstitutional. Q. Ordinance No. 4964 of Manila reads: “It shall be prob bited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of ‘massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop, or in any room or rooms within the same build: ing where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the rooms where massaging is conducted is the same person.” Does this amount to deprivation of property without due pro: A. No, Thisis valid exercise of police power, undor the general ‘welfare clause, for the protection of morals, Velasco v. Mayor Villegas, GR. No, 24153, February 14, 1983. Q _Inan effort to curb immorality, the city of Manila passed an ordinance «hich dicallows the operation of sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns in the Ermita. ‘Malate area. Valid? t ‘A. Conceding for the nonce that the Ermita-Malate area ‘teems with houses of ill-repute and establishments of the like which the City Council may lawfully prohibit, itis baseless and insupportable to bring within that classification sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, night clubs, day clubs, super clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns. This is not warranted under the accepted definitions of these terms, The enumerated establishments are lawful pursuits which are not per se offensive to the moral welfare34 ‘THE 1967 PHILIPPINE CONSSITUTION: Sie t ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER of the community, City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, QB. No, 118121, af te em fudge Laguio, @.B. No, 118127, ‘A Manila ordinance prohibits motels, ete, from offering short- ‘ime admiasion, as well as pro-rated or ‘wash up" rates for such abbreviated stays, The ordinance was invalidated as violative of the right to property of motel operators (a5 in the Laguio case) and of Liberty of potential cliente. The hotel operators were allowed to raise the issue of liberty of clients by appealing to “third party standing” White Light Corpo. City of Manta, GR. No, 90846, January 30, Q. An Executive Onder issued by President Marcos read: “Bxecutive Order No. 628 is heaby amended auch that henst- fort, no sarabaoroperdow of age, ex, Physical onion or purpse tnd no carabee shall be transported from one province to another. The cerabao or carabec transported in violation of this Baxewite Order as anended shel be subject to oaiscalin and frfttare . " ‘he final Executive Order was fr prohibiting the laughter of carabass,eatept under eriain condition, for the purpose of preserving them for the benefit of small farmers. Is the amendment prese 2 farmers, Is the amendment A. _ No, Ontsightcontsaton i not rasonably slated ion not reasonably slated to the pepe, Moreover ite unduly oppresive, The omer of the property Snide operon ob ard ato oper imma confiscated and dated. Yot v. Tntermesiate Court of Appeal, 148 SCRA 659 (1987). areas @. May th state prohibit eandldates for board examinations from aiendingseiew anes or dinar execs? oa oe mnt zat ti ae ree ay Sen eee eng Sina scenes aegis ie A eee chs pert eat wad i es ep aba ee price in movie houses. Is this a valid exercise of police A. _ No. For the benefit of parents then the cost is passed pn to cinema owners, There isto discornible relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals, and the gendral welfare -Balacuit v, Court of First Instance, 163 SCRA 182 (1988). Sec. Ag, ~ BILL OF RIGHTS » NOTE: A Texas statute making ita crime for two persons of the name sex to engage in certain intimate eexual conduct was held to violate the Due Process Clause. Petitioners were free as adults to fengage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Lawrence v. Texas, Decided June 26, 2003. Equal protection. a A ‘What is the meaning of “equal protection of the law?” ‘The equal protection clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The equality it guarantees is “legal equality or, as its usually put, the equality Of all persons before the law. Under it, each individual is dealt with ae an equal person'in the law, which does not treat the person differently because of who he is or what he is or what he possesses, The goddess of justice is portrayed with a blindfold, hot beeaase she must be hindered in seeing where the right lies, but thet she may not discriminate against suitors before her, dispensing instead an even banded justice to all.” Does equal protection prohibit classification? No, but the classification must be reasonable. And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) nust not be limited to. existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1989). @_ RA. 7227 is challenge a8 violative equa protection be couse it grants tax and duty inebntives only to businesses and resi- Gents within the “secured aren” bf the Subic Special Economic Zone fant denying them to those who live within the Zone but outside such fenced-in’ territory. Dotide. ‘A. The Constitution does not require absolute equality emong residents. The real concarn of RA 7227 is to convert the lands formerly toeupied by the US military bases into economic or industrial areas. Tn furtherance af euch objective, Congress deemed it necessary to extend economic incentives to atixect and encourage investors, both local and foreign. Tiu v. court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127420, January 20, 1999. Q _ Filipino teachers in the International School challenge the legality of the schodl's practice of giving higher pay for forcign hires ‘than Filipinos of equal rank. Is the practice constitutional?38 ‘THE 1987 PHLPPnvE constrruT ACOMPREBENSIVE, REVIEWER bee A. No.Theprnspleot*equtpayforequal wor’ rea 3 frag wor? requzetha ersone who work wth substantially equal quietness fd responailiy, under similar coins shod be pal ate fslriat While we rcopie the nod of the Sco to stress hres slain should not be usd nan entiement to he peaked Joab hires The dloenton fader andlintostanerseteehee nese na are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them hic ae nat enjaped by loa hes, such anhousng eereetee shipping cats, taxes und home eave tare clowtne te ea Schoo! Alliance of Educators Q, School Aliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, GR. No, 128646, June 1, Petitioners theorize that Section 4 of RA S16 vn ofthe “gual protection sau” teu sgle sah Ged lunicipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or munici bolaing fie a th ity or municipality for more than four (4) A. Yos. The singling out of election office “ensure the impartiality of election officials venti 4 then hows developing tulisty withthe poole af tele see wee Satis the distinction. De Guzman, dry etal». Comennn Se 129118, July 19, 2000, " "GR Ne QA law prescribes that an appointive official who files a certificate of candidacy ig considered resi putes ofeandidacy is considered resigned. The law does ot apply ‘A. Yeo. Anpointive ofits and elective oft and elie oficial Reno same lan Paras o ». Statin Seton fo, }, December 10, 2003; Quinto v. Camelec, 0. 188 December 1, 2009. ae A, He 280098, @_A.law provides that “In case of termina tn case of tartination of overs employment without just, valid or authorized define . ld or authorized cause a dftaed bye or contract the worker shall be eatted tothe il agente grew (9 mont fr vers year ofthe unenpretarm, wien is less. ler employees, however, are given ‘covera “Unexpiréd term. Valid? Bree Nil cover fr AL _Itis discriminatory against i ainst overseas workers in a matter involving fundamental right. Serrano ¢ rit GR. No. 167614, March 24, 2009. + Gallant Mo salen @ Executive Order No. 1 croated the Truth Commision with power to investigate graft and corruption soa Arroyo administration. Valid. een epeeses Set ARTI — BILL OF RIGHTS id A. No. It violates equal protection for focusing only of what happened during the arroyo administration. Biraogo v, Truth Commission, GR. No. 192935, December 7, 2010. See dissents, NOTE: A different tax treatment for new brands of cigarettes ‘was justified on the basis of practicality and efficiency. That is, since the new brands were not yet in existence at the time of the passage of RA 8240, then Congress needed a uniform mechanism to fix the tax bracket of a new brand. It is argued that the freeze provision violates the equal protection and uniformity of taxation clauses because other brands are taxed based on their 1996 net retuil prices while new cigarette brands are taxed based on their present day net retail prices. The Court said that since this is not a case which involves suspect classification nor impinges on fundamental rights, the rational test basis is what is applicable. It has been held that “in the areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes constitutional, rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facta that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” British American Tobacco v. Camacho, GR. No. 168583, April 16, 2009. Reconsideration. @. Cana provision of aw, initially valid, become subsequently ‘unconstitutional, on the ground {hat its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law? A. Yes. Eg, withthe passageofthe subsequentlaws amending the charter of seven (7) other governmental financial institutions (GFls} removing limitations on employees, the continued operation of the limitation on Contral Bank employees under Section 15(c), Article Il of the Central Bank law constitutes invidious discrimination on the 2,994 rank-and-file employees of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). This is a case of relative unconstitutionality. Central Bank Employees v. Bangko Sentral. G-R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004 (See dissents). & Wnat does tae new Vonstitution say about equal rights for women? A. See Article Il, Section 14, Docs PT&T's compaiy policy of not accepting or consider: ing as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts mar riage violate women's right against discrimination afforded by the Constitution? . A. Yes. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NERC, G.R. No, 118978, May 23, 1997, 272 SCRA 596.‘THE 1987 PuTAPPINE CONsTITUTION: See ACOMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER ‘ sn Ban, wy rie bltowing disqualification for local elective office foun in Batas Big. 62, section is challenged as dicriminstogy Any retired elective provincial, city or municipal official who has received payment of retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected, shall not be {ualifed to cun for the same elective local office from which he has The provision sts al the requirments of va ication, Dumiao v. COMELEC, 8 SCRA 380 lanes 3h Ton @_Aluwis passed probing m ; sera, Ait Pes poking ween hm dec sed [A Tho objet of the la isto prota the moral of women ‘hppa and pveologial diferent iween mon ead nes make th detnsionrenaneeby eet bea ve v. Cleary, 335 U.S, 464 (1948). aaa & A aw J passed prohibiting women fem becoming teachers. Valid? 7 eee ' ws A. No. The distinction between men and women s valid purpose “— @._Alaw is passed requiring ours to give ( records to indigent litigants. Valid? aetane A. _ Yes. The classification serves to equalize o ‘courts between rich and poor. eee A law i passed public office. Valid? ms biting indigents from running for A. No, The discrimination against in serves a tion against indigents serves no valid Or: Cy mp tn rae Su pune rasa hore Sly Soa Sp tn ma tn Om tl i. es hw iste ie rca aor Q PD. 1486 creating the Sandiganbs challenge Sayan is a id 08 Violative of the equal protection clause because rights under it such ‘A. The question her is whether those coming under the pe- Gil compass ofthe Sandiganbayan merit spedalclsideation es Sec.2 ARTY — BILL OF RIGHTS 39 ‘constitutional eal for the ereation of the Sandiganbayan is a call for ‘ special solution to a special problem. It is already a recognition that dishonesty in public service is a valid basis for classification. The Constitution's call for this special court prevails over general provi sions of the Bil of Rights, Nuvlez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433, January 30, 1982. Makasiar, J. filed an extensive dissent which is worth studying. QA law provides that a police officer under investigation may be preventively suspended beyond the usual 90 days and until ‘the case ig decided. Does the law deny equal protection to police officers? A. The special law for police officers is justified by their status. In upholding the provisin the Court said that the “reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of pertons charged criminally or administratively ingofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used ‘to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions.” Himagan v. People, 237 SCRA 538, 861 (1994), @ _Doos the equa} protection clause merely prohibit the State from passing discriminatory laws? A. No. The clause also commands the State to pass laws which positively promote equality or reduce existing inequalities. ‘Sec. 2. The RIGHT OF THR 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 I:GUE EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE AFTER EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE ‘COMPLAINANT AND THE WFINESSES fi: MAY PRODUCE, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO Be SEIZED. @_ What is the purpose of this provision? A. The purpose of the provision is to protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and of his house and other possessions against arbitrary intrusions by State officers. Does the provision probibit all searches and seizures? A. No, Whatit prohibits are “unreasonable searches and seizures.”40 ‘in 1987 punawPnve covsrrrvmox -ACOMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER = Q When are searches and seizures unreasonable? A. Searches and seizures are normally unresionable uniéss authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection given by the search and sefzure clause is that between person and police must Stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with ower to issue oF refuse fo issue search warrants or warrants @ A 1s there a presumption of regularity in search cases? No. To prevent stealthy encroachment > neroa ‘upon, or gradual depreciation of the right to privacy, a liberal construction as and seas esos 9 given in favor of the vidual. Sony Music v, Judge Espafiol, GR. No. 15 March 14, 2005, eee Does ea 2 of the Bill of Rights protect citizens from unreasonable. searches and. selmures eect Private individuals? perpetrated by No. “The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures .. . applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. ..” People u. Marti, GR. No 81561, January 18, 1991. However, it may be possible to find a remedy in the Civil Code. When does an inquiry become a search fe @ search such th; comes under the rule of Section 2? Aro “check pointe” at instance, “search points?” Are checkpoints eonstituticnal? “Notall searches and seizures a izures are prohibited. Th. sro reasonhe are not forbidden, A resonable semen not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be Tesolved according to the facts of each case.” Valmonte v. General de Villa, G.R. No, 83988, September 29, 1989,” When are checkpoints allowed? Cheskgfnt are not ‘egal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival of gervemment is on the bslance, or where the need Safety of the people are in yrave peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. Routine See, 2 POPS ART. II — BILL, OF RIGHTS a inspection and a few questions do not constitute un» reasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless soarch of a moving vehicle. Valmonte v. General de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990. Q, Must checkpoints be announced? A. We-see no need for checkpoints to be announced. Not only would it be impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may stil be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which they are operated, People v. Escaito, G.R. Nos. 129756-58, January 28, 2000. Is every warrantless search or seizure unreasonable? No. As will be shown later, there are exceptions to the rule. What are the essential requisites of « valid warrant? ‘The following are the requisites: (1),it must be issued upon “probable cause;* (2): probable cause must be determined personally by a judge; (3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person ot things to be seized. Probable cause Q A ‘What is “probable canse?” Probable cause means such facts and circumstances antecedent, to the issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient, to induce a cautious man to rely upon them. Specifically, probable cause must be defined in relation to the action which it justifies. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest would taean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Probable cause for @ search would mean such facts and circumstances which would 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2 ‘THE 1997 PHILIPPINE CoNeTYTUTION: See.2 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER in the place sought to be searched. Henry v, United States, 361 U.S, 98, 102 (1959) ‘What kind of evidence is needed to establish probable cause? As implied by the words themsslves, “probable cause” is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. Microsoft Corporation v, Maxicorp, G.R. No. 140946, September 13, 2004, NOTE: To establish probable cause of illegal possession of firearms the witness must have personal knowledge of the existence of the firearms and of the absence of license for such, firearms. Betoy v. Judge, A.M, No. MTJ-05-1608, February 26, 2006. Q. The affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine Times: ye found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines and ite duly constituted authorities, defined and penalized by Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code...” and the affidavit of Lt. Ignacio read: the said periodical published by Rommel Corro, contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities.” Do the affidavits establish probable cause? A. | No. They are nothing but conclusions of law. Corro v. Lising, 187 SCRA 541 (nly 15, 1988). QA search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued gm the basis of a broad statement of the military that Burgos, Jr, “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other Paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were twed and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion.” Is such allegation sufficient to establish, probable cause? A. _ No. It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported by partic lars. Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800 (December 26, 1984), See. 2 ART. IIL — BILL OF RIGHTS a t @. Must proof of probable éause for 2 warrant point to a specific offender? ants of arrest, ‘A. Fora search warrant for things, no; for warrant: xyes. Webb v. de Leon, GR. No. 121294, August 23, 1995. ‘Who may determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant? AL Only a judge. @. Who determines probable cause for the purpose of filing ‘an information? A. ‘he pean, The deamination of poe cst ving a prelisinary investigation ir an exective function. Te arrose a mute thot tho tra cnr tn dose net sn ay fot be complied to pass upon. Paople 0. Court of Appeals, GR. No 126005, January 21, 1900, . An anonymous caller tipped off police ofcers that a man anu a oman Were repecking probed droge a acerein Mosse, The officers immediately proceded to the house. When they reached the hase they ee ie) trogh sal windy an soe spa an woman repacking uresedmarunna "They eared the ouse and confiscated the tea bags and some drag parapherna Subsequent examination ofthe te bags by NBL conrmed the suapicon thatthe ton bage conned marijuana, We there vai search and eeaure? onto the AL _ No, The tate cannot in cavalier feshion intrude into persons ofits citizens as well a into their houses, papers and efets $e contain provision pret the pray and snc of the eon himself againet unlawful avert and other forms of restraint, and prevents him from being irreversibly “cut off from that domestic security which renders the ives of the mst unhappy in somne mearure greeable” People »v, Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754, December 22, 1999. @. May the Commissioner on Immigration issue warrants of arrest? omissoner om Imigration is mt a jude, be nay ot insu waren of aren aid merely ot his investiga Dove, However, he may order the arrest ofan ion fe he Purpose Of carrying out a depiaton order tnt hes areny teome fl Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963); Dalamal v. Deportation Board, 8 SORA 2891989), Calcdayv. Vito, 28 SCRA {28 Goto} frond of Commissioner (CHD). def Roe, 187 SCRA 253,10 Ween‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: See. ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER Q. Where the PCGG issues a search und seizure order which ‘hae all the features of a search warrant, is such order valid? A. No, because only a judge may issue a earch warrant. (Besides, in this ease, there was no probably cause.) Republic v, Sandiganbayan, GR. Nos. 11270809, March 29, 1998. Q— What is needed in order to show probable cause of infringement of copyright by renting agencies of eassette tapes? fe the presentation of master tapes required? A. Not all the time, It is neeted only where there is doubt as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies Columbia Pictures v, CA, GR. No. 110818, August 28, 1996. = Personal examination a A ‘What is the meaning of “personally” in the search and Seizure clause? What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satiefy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses and on the basis thereof, issue 8 warrant of arrest. He may also rely on the fiscal's report or if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a coneiusion as to the existence of probable cause. This means that what is required is personal determination and. not Personal examination. Sound policy dictates this procedure; otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination. and investigation of criminal complaints. Note ‘that in the text the adverb “personally” modifies “determined.” Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, Beltran v. Makasiar, G.R. No, 8287, November 14, 1988, NOTE: A judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses or to await the submission of counter affidavits from an accused. Following established doctrine and procedure, the judge shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied ART. TIE — BILL OF RIGHTS 4s that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Borlongan, Wr. v. Peria, G-R. No, 143591, November 23, 2007. To establish probable cause of illega) possession of firearms the witness must have personal knowledge of the existence of the firearms and of the absence of license for such firearms. Betoy v. Juilge, AM. No. MTJ-05- 1608, February 26, 2006, NOTE: Compare this with Bache and Co. case, infra What procedure must be followed in determining probable A. Thejudge must examine the complainant and his witness- ces under oath or affirmation. This haa been interpreted as requiring a personal and not merely delegated examination by the judge or by the proper officer, because the purpose of the examination is to convince the judge or officer himself and not any other individual. Alvarez v Court, 64 Phil. 38 (1922); Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 828 (1970). For the purpose of satisfying the requirement that the judge examine under oath the complainant and the witnesses, are affidavits of the complainant and of the witnesses sufficient? No. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing ‘of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that, his declarations are false. People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004, (But the actual taking of deposition, etc maybe done by the prosecutor but itis the judge who evaluates the evidence} Q Cana judge rely solety on the certification or recommenda- tion of a prosecutor that probable cause exists in issuing a warrant of arrest? A. No. By itself, the Prosecutor's certification of probable ‘cause ia ineffectual. The judge must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (any, and all other sapporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification, Lim v, Felix, GR. No 84054-67, 19 February 1991,6 ~ ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE coNsTITUTION: See. 2 ‘A. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER Particularity of description What is the meaning of particularity of description? —? A. Asearch warrant nay be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow and by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure. Bache € Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 835 (1971), What is the purpose of requiring particularity of description? A. Its purpose is to prevent abuse hy the officer enforcing the warrant by leaving to him no diseretion as to who or what to search or seize. Where the warrant deseribes what is to be seized as “an undetermined amount of marijuang," is it sufficient? A. Yes. Itisnotrequired that technical precision of description bere,sired, particularly where, by the nature of the goods tobe seized, their description must be rather general, since the requirement of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue, People », Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003. @ Does a “John Doe" warrant satisfy the requirement of parti- cularity of description? A. Yes, provided that it contains a descriptio personae auch as will enable the officer to identify the accused. People v. Veloso, 48 Phil, 169 (1925), But a warrant of arrest against 50 John Does is of the ature of a general warrant clearly violative atleast of the requirement of particularity of description, Pangandaman v, Casar, 159 SCRA 599, 611 (1988). @ Is the following description euficient? “Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, corre- spondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, fand other documents andior papers showing all business traneactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements,” A. No. This amounts to general warrant authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases. Stonehill v. Diokno, 1-19580, June 19, 1967. See also Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc, GAR. No. 140946, September 13, 2004. Bee. 2 ART-I — BILL OF RIGHTS a @ The search warrant deseribed the articles sought to be seized as: “All printing equipment, typewriters, cabinets, tables, communications, recording equipment used or connected in the printing of the “WE FORUM" newspaper and any other documents! ‘communications, letters and facsimile of prints related to the "WE, FORUM" newspaper.” Is this description adequate? A. _ No, The sweeping tenor ofthe description makes the docu- ment a general warrant. Burgos, Sr, v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA. 800 (December 26, 1984). Q. Themilitary applied fora search warrant for two addresses of the newspaper WE Forum: 728 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, QC. and No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Q.C. Two warrants ware issued both of them referring to the Project 6 address. Search nonetheless was made of the RMS Building address. The search of the latter is sought to be invalidated on the ground that the place was not sufficiently described. Decide. A. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. In determining the sufficiency of the description of the address, the executing officer's prior knowledge of the place intended in the ‘warrant is relevant. In this case the executing officer was also the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, He therefore knew what addresses were referred to. Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 183 SCRA 800 (Decemiver 26, 1984). Q. fina warrant forthe search ofthe place there ie a mistake in the identification of the owner of the place, does it invalidate the warrant? A. _Not if the place is properly described, Frank Uy v. BIR, GR. No, 129651, Ostober 20, 2000. seizures “of whatever nature and for whatever purpose?” A. It is submitted that the phrase effectively extends the search and seizure clause to at least two penumbral areas. The first is the eub poona duces tecum under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court. ‘See Material Distributors v. Judge, 84 Phil. 127 (1949) and Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 US, 186, 208-9 (1948). The second, as yet untouched by Philippine jurisprudence, is building inspection by administrative officers. See Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S, 523 (1967), overruling Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S, 360 (1959). @ What is the rule on examination of bank depéeita? A. An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (R.A, No. 1405) would reveal the following allowable exceptions:‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONeTYTUTION: ‘Sen. 2 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER Where the depositor congents in writing: Impeachment case; By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public oficinls; Deposit is subject of litigation; ‘Sec. 8, R.A. No, 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in tho case of PNB vs. Gancayeo. Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001, Are warrantless drug tests in publie schools allowable? In the criminal context, reasonableness usually requires a showing of probable cause. The probable-cause standard, how- ever, is peculiarly related to criminal investigations and may be unsuited to determining the reasonableness of administrative searches where the Government secks to prevent the develop- ment of hazardous conditions. The American Court has held that a warrant and finding of probable cause are unnecessary in the public school context because such requirements would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and infor- mal disciplinary procedures {that are] needed. Vernonia Sci Dist, 47J v, Acton, Decided June 26, 1995; Board of Education v, Earls, No, 01382, Decided June 27, 2002, Republic Act No, (RA) 9165, otherwise known a the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, requires man- datory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor's office with certain offenses, among other personalities, As applied to candidates fur national office, the require- ment is unconstitutional because it adds to the exclusive quali fications for such offices prescribed by the Constitution. As applied to students, following US jurisprudence, the Court upheld the law for the reasons that: (i) schools and their administrators stand in foco porentis with respect to their students; (2) minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools; (3) schools, acting in Joco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well- being of their students and may adopt such measures as may ART. III — BILL OF RIGHTS ro reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, just, and non-discriminatory. Essentially this is the reasonable test. As to employees, the reasonable test was applied. As to candidates for local office, the mandatory character ‘was found tobe unreasonable ad onpressive to privacy. Similarly it was declared unconstitutional for people charged before the prosecutor's affice. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870, 168633, 161658, November 03, 2008. NOTE: The Constitution and the Rules of Court prescribe particular requirements attaching to search warrants. These are not imposed by the AMLA with respect to bank inquiry orders. A constitutional warrant requires that the judge personally examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce such examination being in the form of searching questions and answers. Those are impositions which the legislative did not prescribe’ as to the bank inquiry order under the AMLA. Simply put, a bank ‘inquiry order is not a search warrant or warrant of arrest as it contemplates a direct object but not the seizure of persons or property. Republic v. Eugenio, G.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008. Exclusionary rule What is the consequence of 2 search or seizure without a warrant or by authority of an invalid warrant? Any evidence obtained in such search or seizure, “shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” Article III, Section 3 (2). The Constitution explicitly follows the exclu- sionary rule. @ Dove an application for bail have the effect of waiver of the right to challenge the validity of a warrant? A. No. Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules am Criminal Procedure is new one, intondei! to modify previous rulings of this Court that an application for bail or the admission ta bail by the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to agsail the warrant issued, for his arrest on the legalities or irregularitice thereon, The new rule hhas reverted to the ruling of this Court in People v, Red, (55 Phil. 70650 2 ‘THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ee. 2 ‘A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWER (2981). The new rule is curative in nature heceuse precisely, it was designed to supply defects and eurb evils in procedural rules. Okabe v. Judge de Leon, GR. No. 150185, May 27, 2004, Q._ Are firearms which have been illegally seized in a “zona” admissible in evidence? A, No, “Pending determination ofthe legality of such articles, however, they shall remain in custodia legis, subject to such appro- priate disposition as the corresponding courts may decide.” Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279 (1987), Must goods ilegally seized be returned? ‘A. Yes, unless the possession of such goods is prohibited by law. Castro v, Judge Pabalan, L-28642, April $0, 1976. @. Petitioner was the owner of a motorcycle suspected to be the getaway vehicle of the assailant of the late Moises Espinosa. It ‘waa soized two days after the killing in the house of petitioner. There ‘as no warrant for the soizure. When petitioner sought to recover the vehil, police claimed that it was needed for ch prossiton Comment, A. It must bo returned. The fact that it might be needed for the prosecution of an impurtant crime is no exception to the rule on warrants, Bogalihog v. Fernandes, G.R., No. 96356, June 27, 1981 ‘Who may avail of the defense of an unlawful search or seizure? ‘The objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA (June 19, 1967); Nosiadv. Court of Ta Appeats, 61 SCRA 288 (November 29, Is it required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is dixected? No. It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched. Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 183 SCRA 800 (December 26, 1984). Allowable warrantless searches @ A Is every warrantless search an illegal search? No. According to People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120916, April 3, 1998. ART. It — BILL OF RIGHTS a 1, Warrantless search incidental to « lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. But the tests for a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest are: (2) “the item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control” (United ‘States v, Tarazon, 989 F2d 1045, 1051 [1993]) and (2) “the search was contemporaneous with the arrest” (Shipley u. California, 395 U.S. 818, 819 (1969). Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917, March 12, 1997, 269 SCRA 402, 421. 2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view.” The requisites for this are the elements of which are: (1) a prior valid intrusion in to a place; (2) the evidence wes inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (3) the illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparent; and, (4) and is noticed without further search. People v. Bvaristo, 216 SCRA 413 (1992). 3. Search of a moving uehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy, But there must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. 4. Consented warrantless search. De Garcia v, Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 694-5 (1938) says: But it must appear first, that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or cor;structive, of the existence of such right; lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.” Thus, where the accused has voluntarily surrendered his gun, he eannot claim iegality of the seizure. People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325, 331 (L-376541, July 31, 1981) 5. Customs search or Seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties. Uykheytin v. Villareal, 116 U.S. 746 (1886); Papa vu. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (February 28, 1968); Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16 (March 15, 1974). 6. Stop and Frisk; situations (see below). 7. Bxigent and Emergency Circumstances. (See below). '