This week we are going the following
association or society
1. Right to association
2. Eminent Domain
3. Right against non-impairment of
Contract
4. Rights under custodial
investigation
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
WHAT IS Freedom of association
The right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged (Sec. 8, Art. III,
1987 Constitution).
The right to form associations
shall not be impaired without due process
of law. It is therefore an aspect of the
general right of liberty. More specifically,
it is an aspect of freedom of contract; and
insofar as associations may have for their
object the advancement of beliefs and
ideas, freedom of association is an
aspect of freedom of expression and of
belief.
NOTE: The right to form, or join,
unions or associations, includes the right
not to join or, if one is already a member,
to disaffiliate from the association.
Interpretation of “for purposes not
contrary to law”
It is the same as clear and
present danger rule, only such may
justify abridgement to the right to form
The government must comply with
the heavy burden of showing that the
organization in fact presents a clear and
present danger of substantive evil which
the state has the right to protect
Right to Strike
The right to strike is NOT included
in the right to form unions or freedom of
assembly by government employees.
Their employment is governed by law. It
is the Congress and administrative
agencies which dictate the terms and
conditions of their employment. The
same is fixed by law and circulars and
thus not subject to any collective
bargaining agreement. The claim that the
right to strike is part of the the freedom of
expression and the right to peacefully
assemble and petition the government
for redress of grievances, and should
thus, be recognized even in the case of
government employees, was rejected by
the Supreme Court
The right to self-organization is not
limited to unionism. Workers may also
form or join an association for mutual
aid and protection and for other
legitimate purposes.
 EMINENT DOMAIN may not be taken for another
public use (City of Manila v.
Chinese Community of Manila,
The power of eminent domain is G.R. No. L-14355, October 31,
one of the fundamental powers of the 1919).
state. Simply put, it is the power of the
3. There must be payment of just
State to take private property for public
Compensation
use, purpose, or welfare upon payment
of just compensation. Local government
4. A valid and definite Offer has been
units have no inherent power of eminent
previously made to the owner of the
domain.
property sought to be expropriated,
Local governments can exercise but said offer was not accepted
such power only when expressly (Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M.
authorized by the Legislature. By virtue of Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 127820.
the Local Government Code, Congress July 20, 1998).
conferred upon local government units
NOTE: The Supreme Court
the power to expropriate (Masikip v. City
held “the burden is on the LGU to
of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23,
prove its compliance with the
2006).
mandatory requirement of a valid
Requisites for the valid exercise and definite offer to the owner of
of the power of eminent domain. the property before its filing of its
(OPCO) complaint for expropriation.
Failure to prove compliance with
1. An Ordinance is enacted by the local the mandatory requirement will
legislative council authorizing the result in the dismissal of the
local chief executive, in behalf of the complaint.
LGU, to exercise the power of
eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceeding over a
particular private property.

NOTE: LGU cannot authorize

an expropriation of private
property through a mere
resolution of its lawmaking
body.

2. It must be for Public use, purpose, or

welfare or for the benefit of the poor
or landless
NOTE: Property
already devoted to public use
NON-IMPAIRMENT / CONTRACT
CLAUSE
CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION OF
THE NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Impairment of contracts
Any law which introduces a
change into the express terms of the
contract, or its legal construction, or its
validity, or its discharge, or the remedy
for its enforcement, impairs the contract.
The law impairs the obligation of
contracts if:
1. It changes the terms and
conditions of a legal contract
either as to the time or mode
of performance;
2. It imposes new conditions or
dispenses with those
expressed if it authorizes for
its satisfaction something
different from that provided in
its terms.
NOTE: Mere technical change
which does not change the substance of
the contract, and which still leaves an
efficacious remedy for enforcement does
NOT impair the obligation of contracts. A
valid exercise of police power is superior
to obligation of contracts.
Applicability of the provision
This constitutional provision is
applicable only if the obligation of
contract is impaired by legislative act
(statute, ordinance, etc.). The act need
not be by a legislative office; but it should
be legislative in nature. Furthermore, the
impairment must be substantial
(Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives
Assoc. v. DILG Secretary, G.R. No.
143076, June 10, 2003).
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE
PROVISION
One, in case of Franchises,
privileges, licenses, etc.
NOTE: These are
subject to amendment,
alteration or repeal by
Congress when the
common good so requires.
Two, there is neither public
interest involved nor a law that
supports the claim.
NOTE: It can only
be invoked if it is against
the government or when
the government intervenes
in contract between the
parties (Pacific Wide Realty
and Development Corp. v.
Puerto Azul Land, Inc.,
G.R. No. 180893,
November 25, 2009).
NOTE: The non-impairment
clause always yields to the police power
of the state–and even to the power of
taxation and eminent domain–for as long
as the subject matter of the contract is
imbued with paramount public interest.
Into every contract is deemed written the
police power of the State. Also, the police
power may not be bargained away
through the medium of a contract, or
even that of a treaty.
Mutuality of contracts
General Rule: Valid contracts
should be respected by the legislature
and not tampered with by subsequent
laws that will change the intention of the
parties or modify their rights and
obligations.
NOTE: The will of the parties to a
contract must prevail. A later law which
enlarges, abridges, or in any manner
changes the intent of the parties to the
contract necessarily impairs the contract
itself and cannot be given retroactive
effect without violating the constitutional
prohibition against impairment of
contracts (Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No.
71169, December 22, 1988).
XPN: Enactment of laws pursuant
to the exercise of police power because
public welfare prevails over private rights.
It is deemed embedded in every contract
a reservation of the State’s exercise of
police power, eminent domain and
taxation, so long as it deals with a matter
affecting the public welfare (PNB v.
Remigio, G.R. No. 78508, March 21,
1994).
 RIGHTS OF UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
MIRANDA/CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION RIGHTS
These are the rights to which a
person under custodial investigation is
entitled. At this stage, the person is not
yet an accused as there is yet no case
filed against him. He is merely a suspect.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RIGHTS
OF SUSPECTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION:
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice;
3. Right to be reminded that if he cannot
afford the services of counsel, he would
be provided with one
4. Right to be informed of his rights;
5. Right against torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation or any other means
which vitiate the free will;
6. Right against secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or similar forms
of detention;
7. Right to have confessions or admissions
obtained in violation of these rights
considered inadmissible in evidence
(Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June
13, 1966).
NOTE: Even if the person
consents to answer questions without the
assistance of counsel, the moment he
asks for a lawyer at any point in the
investigation, the interrogation must
cease until an attorney is present.
The “Miranda Rights” are
available to avoid involuntary
extrajudicial confession.
The purpose of providing counsel
to a person under custodial investigation
is to curb the police-state practice of
extracting a confession that leads
appellant to make self-incriminating
statements.
Admissibility as evidence of
confessions given to news reporters
and/or media and videotaped
confessions
Confessions given in response to
a question by news reporters, not
policemen, are admissible. Where the
suspect gave spontaneous answers to a
televised interview by several press
reporters, his answers are deemed to be
voluntary and are admissible.
Videotaped confessions are
admissible, where it is shown that the
accused unburdened his guilt willingly,
openly and publicly in the presence of the
newsmen. Such confessions do not form
part of confessions in custodial
investigations as it was not given to
policemen but to media in attempt to
solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the
public.
However, due to inherent danger
of these videotaped confessions, they
must be accepted with extreme caution.
They should be presumed involuntary, as
there may be connivance between the
police and media men (People v. Endino,
G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001).
 NOTE: What the Constitution bars
is the compulsory disclosure of the
incriminating facts or confessions. The
rights under Sec. 12 are guarantees to
preclude the slightest use of coercion by
the State, and not to prevent the suspect
from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth.