CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

JUDGE RIGOR RAYMUNDO PASCUAL

Mira, Angela Bianca C.

1
 FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE asked St Scho to move the fences back a total of
3762.36sqm to make sure that no immoral acts happen
inside ensure the safety of the constituents (mostly for crime
Police power is the Taxation affects Eminent domain
prevention and rescue from the same). There was a valid
inherent power of property rights in affects property
the state that order to raise rights for the subject, which is the regulation of public property for public
affects and revenue by purpose of public safety. There was no valid means because the means
regulates property imposing/exacting use through the employed were oppressive, considering that the privacy
and liberty rights money in order to taking of private rights of the individuals were curtailed in the process.
for the purpose of benefit from a form property for public Privacy rights must be given primacy
the common good. of service. use
Sobrejuanite-Flores v Pilando
The benefit of this
RA 10029 regulates the psychology profession by making
is the altruistic
feeling we get from aspiring psychologists and psychiatrists to take a licensure
it. exam with the exception of the people already practicing it,
provided certain requirements are met (years of working,
certain hours of continuing education, etc). The
constitutionality of the law was not questioned but police
POLICE POWER power was discussed in terms of the regulation of the
An inherent power of the state profession – this is the valid subject. Government
Plenary power is the most pervasive because it affects examinations for the purpose of licensing is an exercise of
property and liberty rights to protect the public safety, police power to ensure that the public will be given
health, and morals (the common good). competent service so that they will be protected.

Who exercises? Ynot v Intermediate Appellate Court

The power is lodged in Congress and its delegates such as
the LGU, the President, and the different Administrative
Agencies
Plenary Power
Absolute and complete power that intrudes on the rights of
the people from womb to tomb and it generally it cannot be
questioned
Ex. MTRCB - regulated by police power, birth certificate,
death certificate
The transport of carabao and carabeef from 1 province to
another was prohibited by RA 626 to protect the poor man’s
tractor. The Toribio precedent stated that there was a valid
police measure in killing the carabao. In the instant case,
while there was a valid subject (protect the poor man’s
tractor from slaughter), there was no valid means insofar as
the transportation of the creatures was concerned because
there was no guarantee that the carabao – let alone the
carabeef – could be protected from slaughter because those
can be killed anywhere.

Forms of Regulations Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Assoc.

1. Selective Prevention/Prohibition
2. Destroy (when it’s noxious)
3. Take
2 Tests for the Valid Exercise
1. Lawful Subject
When the interference of the state is needed to
further the interest of the public
2. Lawful Means
Means employed are reasonably necessary and is
not duly oppressive
Can 2 powers be used at the same time?
YES. To determine which is actually used and which is the
tool, we have to determine the purpose and goal of that
governmental action:
Police Power - regulate
Taxation - raise revenue
Eminent Domain - take property NOT TO DESTROY
but for public purpose after payment of just
compensation
Fernando v St Scholastica
An ordinance required all establishments to demolish and
replace their fence so that 80% of it is see-through and
There was an ordinance prohibiting the use of aerial
fertilizer spray by the banana plantations to protect the
people living around the area from inhaling dangerous
chemicals and also to protect the land. It was invalid
because the means was invalid.
Landbank v Republic of the Philippines
In this case, a piece of inalienable forested land (protected
and owned by the state) was mortgaged and Landbank
wanted to foreclose it. Prohibition against alienation of
properties of the public domain is a police power measure,
and the government can prohibit its sale as it is used as
public land.
A contractual stipulation cannot defeat police power (or any
inherent power) because the state is deemed included and
involved in all contracts stipulated, even those contracted by
private individuals. Even if these regulations change the
nature of the obligations and rights of parties, it does not
amount to impairment of contracts.
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v Mayor of Manila
An ordinance was upheld requiring hotels and motels to
take the personal information of their guests. Unlike in the
case of White Light and Fernando v St Scho, the means
1
were said to be valid and reasonable because it is not TAXATION
intrusive. The taking of the name and other details is a What are taxes?
necessary regulation for the conduct of business and even It is the enforced proportional contribution levied by the
security. state in its sovereign capacity on persons and property for
purposes of raising revenue.
SPARKS
Enforced Levied by the State
Curfew is a police power measure. The use of the valid
Forced and compelled to Only the government who
subject and valid means test would show that this is a valid
contribute can impose taxes. This
ordinance but another test was introduced. The right
power is primarily lodged
involved here is the right to travel and that is a fundamental
Proportional in Congress but may be
freedom. Only the QC passed the strict scrutiny test
Amount of tax depends on validly delegated to the
because they provided for exceptions whereas the Navotas
your ability to pay President, administrative
and Manila ordinances (blanket prohibition). While QC
agencies, and the LGUs
regulates rights, it still upholds other rights.
(only after 1989 Consti)

Strict Scrutiny Persons & Property

There must be a compelling state interest. The person, the activity of
In this case, it is to protect the welfare of the minors the person, and his
It must be the least restrictive means property may be taxed.
It must still protect the rights. Crafted and tailored in a way
that curtails the least amount of rights
Primary Purpose
The inherent power of the state to levy taxes on the
population for the purpose of generating/raising revenue.

Secondary Purposes
It does not preclude the state from attaining secondary
purposes for taxation. (Usually a police power measure)
1. Protect local industries by giving tax deductions or
increasing quota and taxes for imports
2. Subsidize certain industries (taxes through special
purposes like tobacco and healthcare industries)

Is a government order levying money immediately amount

to taxation?
NO. It may be police power in the form of police power. The
purpose of the collection must be determined:

Taxation Police Power

Cover administrative costs
Raise revenue
(like business license fees)
Bigger amount of money Small fees
collected (50-200)

Life Blood Doctrine

Taxes are the lifeblood of the state. Without it, no
government can endure or exist.

CIR v Algue
The mere fact that the government needs taxes to survive
does not mean that taxes be imposed to the point of being
burdensome to the people who are forced to pay it or else
the people would just not pay altogether

Stricsissimi Juris Principle

Doubtful tax provisions must be strictly construed against
the state and the government so as not to overly burden the
taxpayer

2
 Taxes are obligations and only clear imposition of 3 Principles that Mandate the Imposition of Taxes
taxes are to be imposed as these are burdens that 1. Uniform
people must bear Articles of the same class must be taxed at the
Tax Exemptions same rate in the same taxing jurisdiction.
The immunity or exemption granted to individuals or
properties from the payment of taxes. 2. Equitable
Fair, just, reasonable and proportionate to the
When there is doubt against the existence of the exemption, taxpayer's ability to pay
it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer.
The assumption here is that the law that imposes 3. Progressive
taxes is already clear so the claim of exemption It posits that the tax rate increases as the taxpayer
must also be clearly stated in the law. must also pay a higher tax.

Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc., v. CIR The Constitution mandates that the Congress
CIR ordered PH Healthcare to pay a VAT and Documentary should evolve a progressive system of taxation but
Stamp Tax for every contract that they execute with all their it never prohibits Congress from actually imposing
clients amounting to Php 376M. Stricsissimi juris does not regressive forms of taxation.
apply to this case because the capitalization of Ph
Healthcare is merely Php 200M. The imposition of such tax
Regressive Progressive
will virtually bankrupt them because their obligations is
Income ↓ then Tax ↑ Income ↑ then Tax ↑
bigger than their assets. Further, millions of Filipinos rely on
…and vice versa
Maxicare and imposition will deprive the Filipinos of their
healthcare needs.
Principles for a Sound Tax System
If taxation is used for its 1. Administrative Feasibility
primary purpose of raising The collection must be feasible (cash and not
Power to tax is the power to revenue, it does not become in-kind)
destroy when it becomes an a power to destroy because
implement of police power. the court sits and is there to 2. Theoretical Justice
temper the reasonability of Taxes to be collected must be based on the
the taxes to be imposed taxpayer’s ability to pay

Angeles University Foundation v. City of Angeles 3. Fiscal Adequacy

Non-stock, non-profit Educational Institutions The amount collected must only be for the
To be exempted from taxes, the buildings (or the parts purposes needed
concerned) have to be ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, and
EXCLUSIVELY used for educational purposes. Double Taxation
Actually - really used for that purpose 2 taxes are imposed on
Directly - the institution is the direct beneficiary 1. the same subject
Exclusively - to the exclusion of others, these are 2. for the same purpose
the only ones used 3. by the same taxing authority
BUILDING EXAMPLE 4. in the same jurisdiction
5. and are the same kind of tax
Taxable PARKING

CLASSROOM
Direct Double Taxation Indirect Double Taxation
TAX All elements above are Not all the elements are
EXEMPT
GYM FOR PE present present

Taxable RESTAURANTS This is unacceptable because This is acceptable

it amounts to taking of
property without due process
Toll vs Tax
of law
1. Tolls are not taxes because they are demands of
proprietary entities while taxes are demands of the
sovereign. Limits on Taxation
2. Tolls are paid for the use of the property, while INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL
taxes are paid for revenue generation. They are limitations simply Limitations imposed by the
3. The payment of tolls is for the use of the property because the power to tax is constitution
present
1. Public purpose 1. Due process
Taxes are used only for
3
 INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL
public purpose. 2. Equal protection
2. International comity 3. Uniformity, equitability
The Ph cannot impose and progressive system
taxes on other states of taxation
because of the concept of
sovereign equality of 4. Non-impairment of
states contracts
3. Non-delegability 5. Non-imprisonment for
Congress and its non-payment of poll tax
delegates are the only
ones who may impose 6. Revenue and tariff bills
taxes must originate in the
House of
4. Territoriality Representatives
Taxing authorities cannot
tax outside of their 7. Non-infringement of
jurisdiction. This is NOT religious freedom
absolute because there is
extraterritorial 8. Delegation of legislative
imposition of taxes which authority to the
states that people of the President to fix tariff
Ph may be taxed rates, import and export
wherever that income quotas, tonnage and
might come from wharfage dues
5. Exemption against 9. Tax exemption of
Government properties actually,
Taxes must not be directly and exclusively
imposed on the used for religious,
government as they are charitable and
the ones taxing the educational purposes
people
10.Majority vote of all the
members of Congress
required in case of
legislative grant of tax
exemptions
11.Non-impairment of SC’s
jurisdiction in tax cases
12.Tax exemption of
revenues and assets of,
including grants,
endowments, donations
or contributions to
educational institutions.
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications
Construction of feeder roads that lead to the subdivision
was invalid because it used public money for the
construction of the said road. The supposed public purpose
was merely incidental to the private purpose of the
construction of the road. It violates the public purpose
requirement.
EMINENT DOMAIN
EMINENT DOMAIN EXPROPRIATION
Refers to the power
The power to take private
property for public use after
payment of just
compensation Refers to the process
Akin to a forced sale because
its the govt imposing its own
will on the private property
of the private owner
AS A POWER
Taking may refer to real or personal property
1. There must be an act of taking
a. Usually you know when something is
taken from you but there are instances
when you have the property with you but
the government has already taken it
b. 5 Elements of Taking
Rep v Vda. Del Castelvy
i. Expropriators must enter private
property either by land or air
ii. Entrance for more than a
temporary period – not for a
moment only
iii. Entry must be under the warrant
or color of legal authority – entry
is justified by law or
circumstances
iv. Property must be for public use
or must be appropriated or
injuriously affected by
governmental action
v. Ousts the owner and deprive him
of all beneficial enjoyment of the
property
US v Cosby
A poultry farm owner’s property was deemed to
have been taken by the govt because of the airport
built near it that lowered the cost of production.
There was (1) entry through the air which is (2) not
momentary. The construction of the airport was (3)
authorized by the government and was being used
for a (4) public purpose. Because of this, the owner
did not (5) benefit and paid just compensation.
2. What was taken must be private property
a. Private Property
Owned by private individual
b. Public Property/Dominion
There is no taking of public property;
that’s just ownership by the state
c. Government cannot take 2 things
4
 i. Cash happens in inverse expropriation proceedings. Interest starts
ii. Choses of action or the right to upon entry.
go against another person
because it is conditional in Republic v Lim
character Before 2005, late payment merely incurs interest. After
2005, the Court stated that just compensation must be
Public use made within a reasonable amount of time (5 years) after the
Property must be devoted for public use Court decides on the just compensation; otherwise, the
private owner may take back his property.
Manasco v CA
It does not mean that the taking will benefit the public – Just compensation is only in cash
there is no numerical value. The point of it is that it must be This was an exercise of police power and extraordinary
for the public good. eminent domain
In Small Land Owners Case, they were paid in
MORE Case binds and stocks because payment in case would
A property already used for the public may be expropriated be impossible
AGAIN for another public purpose 1. All properties were taken for agrarian
reform
Just Compensation 2. It was for a public purpose – free farmers
It is the full, fair, and equitable amount of money given by from bondage of the soil
the government to the owner of the private property. We 3. Payment would be in billions
must take into consideration the owner’s loss and the
taker’s gain AS A PROCEEDING
In Regular Expropriation Proceedings
EPSA v Dulay Complaint is filed in the RTC where the property is located
Computation and determination of the just compensation is
a ONLY judicial function. Congress and the President cannot What to prove
compute this. 1. Expropriator has the power to do so
GR: Rules of Court Show that the authority exists whether it is vested
The value of the property should be reckoned from in Congress, LGU, or private institutions (ex.
1. The date of taking NAPOCOR, NAWASA, MERALCO - public utility)
2. The date of filing of the complaint
WHICHEVER COMES FIRST 2. It will be devoted to public use
Determination of necessity. If it is exercised by
Regular E.P. Inverse E.P. Congress, it cannot be questioned because it will
If the taking comes first If the filing comes first make it a political question. If its delegated, it can
be questioned
Exception
1. When there is a due process violation, this need ————ORDER OF CONDEMNATION————
not be followed
2. J. Bersamin (power plant) - The time of the filing 3. Amount of just compensation is determined
was followed and not the actual taking (this came The trial with the aid of commissioners (not more
first) because they were unable to determine when than 3) is a right, so courts CANNOT skip this
the actual taking happened requirement.
However, the court may disregard the value given
Computing JC by the commissioners’ report only for valid reasons
such as grossly inadequate amount. Consideration
FAIR MARKET CONSEQUENTIAL CONSEQUENTIAL
VALUE
+ DAMAGES - BENEFITS
must be given to the size, amount, and like
properties and must be based on the evidence
Price where buyer Occurs usually when Occurs usually when presented.
is willing but not there's only partial there's only partial
compelled to sell expropriation expropriation
and
Seller is willing but Includes the damages The benefits owner
not compelled to that will be incurred will receive due to
buy due to expropriation expropriation

Promptness of Payment
Just compensation, to be considered just, must be prompt.
Upon failure of the government to pay just compensation,
interest must be included in the payment – this only
5
 BILL OF RIGHTS
PRIVATE ACTS & BILL OF RIGHTS
The Bill of Rights aim to protect an individual from the
intrusion of the government and NOT private individuals
People v Marti
If a private person violates your right against searches and
seizures, you cannot sue the State for this because it was
not them who violated your rights
Dela Cruz v People
He was interviewed and he revealed his confession. At this
point, protection cannot be extended to him because it was
not the court who questioned him
Yrassuegui
PAL is a private entity and not the government so the
supposed discrimination was violative of his rights.
DUE PROCESS
Life, liberty, and property can be taken from you as long as
due process is given to you
Swiss-Army Knife
The due process is a flexible tool to challenge
government action
Due
The primacy of human life is the most important
Life > Liberty > Property
Only arises if there are conflicting interests
Liberty > Property
A person ceases to be a person without liberty
because once it is taken, it cannot be taken back.
Even the passage of time does not make you lose
your liberty even if you do not use it. It is not the
same with property.
PBMEO
Employees wanted to rally against police brutality. The
heads of the union officer were terminated so they filed a
case for illegal termination. Employer spoke of the “No
strike, no lockout” policy. The workers contend that it was
not a strike. The SC sided with the union officers because
they wished to protect their property rights and the
employers wished to protect their property rights. Liberty
rights are more important than property rights.
Imbong v Ochoa
Just shows how much the government gives importance to
life even of the unborn.
Life
Your other rights are nothing if you are not alive. This
includes the right to have a quality kind of life
Buck v Bell
The mentally incapacitated woman was sterilized
and this is an intrusion to her right to life and her
right to reproduce.
Liberty
You may do what you want so long as it does not violate the
rights of others
Lawrence v Texas
Penalized sodomy but this was an intrusion of
private rights and the law unduly regulated the
liberty rights of 2 consenting adults
Property
—VALUE JUDGMENT: WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT? —
6
KINDS OF DUE PROCESS
1. Constitutional - from the consti C. Administrative
2. Statutory - procedure of fairness as regards specific 7 Cardinal Rights Cardinal Primacy Rights
actions 1. Right to hearing

Procedural Due Process 2. Consider evidence

Fairness = procedure (absence or skipping of 1 step makes it undue) presented
A. Judicial
Cold impartiality of a Judge 3. Have something to
The judge must be objective and must also appear support its decision
to others as impartial
4. Substantial Evidence
Jurisdiction Lawfully Acquired Can a man of simple
Jurisdiction is the power to hear try and decide mind accept that the
cases (juri +dico) evidence support the
claim?
Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff
● When complaint or petition is filed 5. Decision rendered on 1. Hearing stage
[intervention] evidence presented 2. Deliberative Stage
3. Duty to give reason
Jurisdiction Over Defendant 6. Judges must act on
● Receipt of compulsory processes its or his own
(summons) independent
● Voluntary appearance consideration of the
law and facts of the
Jurisdiction over Subject Matter controversy
The topic of conflict. This is determined by law so
the law must be checked to see if one has 7. Court must render a
jurisdiction over the case decision in such a
manner that the
Issues parties to the
Depending on the presence of the pleading proceeding can know
the various issues
The Res involved and reasons
The thing itself. The court acquires jurisdiction of
the thing if it was presented or delivered in court. Academic Proceeding
Rights of the Student
B. Labor 1. Informed in writing
JUST CAUSES AUTHORIZED CAUSES 2. File an answer
(1) 30-day notice must 3. Informed of Evidence against them
be given before intended 4. Adduce Evidence
Twin-notice Rule
date of retrenchment. 5. Consider Evidence
1. Notice of charge and
Within the 30-days, D. Criminal
grounds for dismissal
employer must Jurisdiction over Subject Matter
———HEARING——— Determined by law
(2) inform DOLE before
termination and Jurisdiction over Accused
2. Grounds for
termination ● Through compulsory processes (warrant of
(3) must give the last arrest)
pay ● Voluntary surrender

GROUND PROCEDURE DISMISSAL Jurisdiction over Territory

Just Causes ✔ ✔ VALID Where the offense or its elements was committed.
If it was committed in multiple places, unahan ang
& ✘ ✘ INVALID courts.

Authorized ✘ ✔ INVALID
Opportunity to be heard
Causes VALID +
✔ ✘ ● “Opportunuty” because this may actually be taken from
DAMAGES
you (you are given the chance)

7
 ○ If it was “right,” then it would mean that it was
guaranteed to you (you must speak)
● You cannot claim unfairness if you waive this right
Hearing
Submission of comments or oppositions are
counted
Lawful Hearing
Judgment rendered after all pieces of evidence
have been submitted
Substantive Due Process
Whether or not the law is reasonable
This analyzes the validity of the substance of the law
Void for Vagueness
A vague law does not inform the individual of what is being
prohibited. This gives the police/authority unbridled
discretion on determining what the law is
Is mere vagueness void?
NO. Some laws are made to be vague and general
so it’s flexible. In cases such as these, the rules of
statutory construction applies

2 Tests of Validity
FACIAL CHALLENGE AS APPLIED
REAL PARTY OF Only the person
Anyone
INTEREST affected
Provision that affects
QUESTIONED Entire law
the person
APPLICATION Fundamental Rights All others

Overbreadth Doctrine
The void law prevents an evil but due to its language, it also
impairs other rights.

Strict Scrutiny Standard

When fundamental rights are involved. If the person
assailed that the law infringes on free speech, it is assumed
unconstitutional and the State must prove that it satisfies
the 2 standards
1. Interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights
2. Burdens suspect class

8
EQUAL PROTECTION
Does the EPC prevent discrimination? 2. NOT confined to Existing Conditions only
Equal protection of the law requires equality but not Classification must not be time bound and must be
absolute equality. It merely involves equality among equals. applicable to the future

It does not, however, prevent discrimination. Though it
recognizes equality, it only recognizes it among equals - if
you are not “the same,” you will be treated differently.
Equal Protection Inverse Equal Protection
A person included in the
A person excluded wants to
classification must be
be included
excluded.
Philippine Judges Association v Prado
This is a classic example of inverse equal protection.
The judiciary was the only branch of government to be
excluded from the franking privileges provided by
Philippine Postal Corporation. There is no substantial
difference between the judiciary and the 2 other branches
of the government. Even assuming there is a substantial
difference, the purpose of the exemption of the 2 is not
clear because if the purpose is to earn or save money, all of
the branches must be made to pay. Hence, the classification
is pointless.
Ormoc Sugar Company v Ormoc City
The ordinance in question only specifically taxed
Ormoc Sugar Company as it was the only sugar
company in Ormoc City at the time. This was
declared unconstitutional because, should there be
another sugar milling corporation be established in
the city in the future, those would not be taxed as
per the city ordinance: only Ormoc Sugar Company
was expressly pointed out to be the company to be
levied upon.
3. Germane to the purpose of the law, meaning the
grouping must be for a particular purpose and
there is good reason for grouping the subjects that
way.
The classification must always have a valid reason
behind it, and it must always be consistent with
that reason.

REMEMBER
4. As to rights conferred and obligations imposed, all
persons of the Same Class must be upheld.
Is there a classification?
If the question refers to or talks about classification, there is
Whatever rights or obligations one of the people in
almost always a question on Equal Protection. There is a
that classification receives, all must receive.
particular section, person, or group being targeted being
highlighted by the law or the legal action.
Standards of Review
Intermediate
Valid Classification based on Equal Protection requires Strict Scrutiny Rational Basis
Review
Reasonability [S-Ex-G?-SaClass]
Highest form of
1. Substantial distinction between the group under
review
consideration and the other population
When the
The distinction is not superficial but significantly Used for cases
classification
differentiates one group from the other. For fundamental involving economic
speaks of suspect
rights freedoms rights
classes
Garcia v Drilon (speech, life, etc.) (usually police
(usually minorities
The constitutionality of RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC) was power),
and marginalized),
questioned because there allegedly was an unfair
classification between men and women who Important
Just need to show a
commit acts of violence against the other gender. governmental
legitimate state
It is NOT violative of equal protection, mainly if Compelling state interest, the means
interest and that
observed through the lens of power relations. A interest, and there used to achieve
there is a
patriarchal society inherently gives men power, and are no other less that interest is
reasonable
women are always disadvantaged, hence the need restrictive means to something that’s
relationship
for protection for women in particular. attain that objective reasonable
between state
or need of the govt
interest and
Loving v Virginia Definitely less
government action
The substantial distinction between purely demanding that SS
Caucasian and mixed marriages (between a
Caucasian and a Negro woman) was questioned.
END OF MIDTERM TOPIC
Obergefell v Hodges
The marriage of heterosexual and homosexual
couples was distinguished but this distinction was
questioned in the case. Like in the case above,
nothing SUBSTANTIALLY differentiates the 2.
9
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Also known as your right to be left alone
The words “right to privacy” do not appear in the
Constitution but despite that fact, jurisprudence recognizes
that insofar as the right to privacy is concerned, it can be
traced to 2 provisions in the Constitution
Requirements for a Valid Search Warrant and Warrant of
Arrest [P-J-Par]
1. Probable Cause
A reasonable belief that would engender a
reasonable person to believe that the offense had
been committed and the person should be held
liable for the supposed offense/s

Art III Sec 2 Are all the elements established by reasonable

Unreasonable Searches &
Seizure
The right of the people to
be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable
searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be
determined personally by
the judge after
examination under oath or
affirmation of the
complainant and the
witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing
the place to be searched
and the persons or things
to be seized.
Art III Sec 3
belief or kapani-paniwala ba yung ebidensiya?
Privacy of Correspondence
A reasonable belief (kapani-paniwala)that
(1) The privacy of
the person charged has committed the
communication and
offense and should be held for trial.
correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon
There is a reasonable belief that there are
lawful order of the court,
pieces of evidence in a particular case and
or when public safety or
there is a need to secure those pieces of
order requires otherwise,
evidence
as prescribed by law.
a. Executive Determination of Probable
(2) Any evidence obtained
Cause
in violation of this or the
This is determined by the prosecutors for
preceding section shall be
the purposes of determining whether or
inadmissible for any
not they will file an information in court
purpose in any proceeding.
b. Judicial Determination of Probable
Cause
This is determined by the judges for the
purposes of determining whether a
warrant of arrest must be issued. This
presupposes that a case is already filed in
court.

Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. CA
Government cannot arrest you nor search your residence nor People were found to be making copies of DVD’s
take any of your personal belongings without a warrant of (piracy) without the consent of the one who is
arrest or a search warrant licensed to distribute these films. 20th Century Fox
requested a search warrant for certain places that
REMEMBER sell these movies. The judge issued a search
No arrest warrant = no arrest warrant and the items were confiscated. The
No search warrant = no search people concerned wanted to suppress and quash
the evidence because the issuance of the search
warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause.
Warrant of Arrest
20th Century Fox said that there was probable
Court process that requires a person to be placed under the
cause as proven by the pieces of evidence but the
custody of law in order for him to answer for an offense or a
SC disagreed as the mastertape or the original
crime
video was never found – thus, having no proof that
such media was fake. They had to show the
Search Warrant
original to prove that what they have was fake and
Judicial process that authorizes persons of law enforcement
20th Century Fox was unable to do that – hence,
to
no probable cause.
1. Search a particular area
2. Described therein
2. Personal Determination of the Judge
3. For purposes of obtaining illegal or contraband
The judge must personally determine the
goods
determination of probable cause after examination
under oath of the complainant and the witnesses
(testimonies and documents presented)
The determination of probable cause cannot be left
to the discretion of the staff. The judge must ask

10
 searching questions to determine if probable cause
exists. This cannot be delegated.
3. Requirement of Particularity
The warrant shall particularly describe the place to
be searched (search warrant) or the person
(warrant of arrest) or thing/s to be seized
General Warrants are PROHIBITED and
necessarily VOID.
Person
State the name OR append a fictitious
name but make sure that you include
distinguishing features that would
determine the correct identity of the
person (John/Jane Doe Warrants)
Place
What is the purpose of the search, and
what is it that you need to obtain? This
prevents fishing expeditions or just taking
everything close enough to the description
REMEMBER
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
If any of the requirements for a valid warrant is missing
then none of the items seized from the accused cannot be
used against him for whatever purpose
If there is no compliance to any of these requirements, then
the government cannot meddle with your privacy
Stonehill v Diokno
Prior to this case, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did
not exist – so long as evidence was found, it is admissible in
court. It was only after this case did they said that evidence
obtained through a void warrant cannot be admissible into
evidence.
“The prisoner should go free because the constable has
stumbled”
REMEMBER
No arrest warrant = no arrest
No search warrant = no search
EXCEPT for Valid Warrantless Arrests and Valid
Warrantless Search
Valid Warrantless Arrest
[Rule 113 Sec 5 of Rev Rules of Criminal Procedure]
1. In flagrante delicto arrest
The person is committing, about to commit, or has
committed an offense in his presence
2. Hot Pursuit Arrest
a. Offense has just been committed
b. NOT in his presence
c. Arresting officer has probable cause
d. PC is based on his personal knowledge
and through his investigation (he has to
ask witnesses who saw or know of the
instance – bawal ang speculation lang on
the part of the police officer)
e. This is an exception because the idea of
the law is that the offense is fresh
f. Jurisprudence provides that this must be
made within a reasonable time [around 7
days] otherwise, a warrant of arrest must
be obtained
3. Arrest of an Escapee
When a prisoner escapes, there is no need for a
warrant to arrest them because, in the first place,
they should already be detained
Valid Warrantless Search
[Jurisprudence: specific instances and catch-all provision]
1. Search of Moving Vehicles
Since moving vehicles can be transported from one
place to another, it is difficult to secure a search
warrant from the court because the person, via the
vehicle, can move away from the territorial
jurisdiction of the court that is to issue the search
warrant. (Usually for checkpoints)
Visual Search Only
Just show the immediate vicinity of the car – you
cannot be ordered to open any compartment or
bags inside the car.
DO NOT get out of the car. The only time the police
are justified to intrude further than this is if they
have probable cause (e.g. if it smells like marijuana)
2. Customs Searches
The customs personnel are allowed to open and
search your luggage and balikbayan boxes to see if
there are taxable duties or dutiable items in order
for them to impose taxes.
3. Consented Search
When the person being searched agrees and
consents to be searched. The consent must be
freely given and there are no vices of consent
present during the supposed acquiescence of the
accused to be searched.
Valid Consent
Valid and free consent exists if, and only if, it was
obtained without the vices of consent.
Vices of consent are those instances that
may undermine the validity of the consent
given (e.g. the person is surrounded by
men in police uniform holding big guns)
11
 Valeroso v CA
The mere fact of agreement does not mean
consent. It has to be proven that the circumstances
present were not cause for the person to be forced
into consenting.
4. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest
When persons are arrested, usually the arresting
officer pats them down (kinakapkapan) on their
outer garments to ensure the safety, life, and
health of the police officer himself.
Anything obtained from that search that
possession thereof is in violation of the law is
admissible evidence. HOWEVER, the validity of
the search is dependent on the validity of the
arrest.
5. Plain-view Doctrine
Requirements [In-In-Pill]
1. Prior VALID Intrusion:
There must be a reason why the person is
there. Anything found after the
determination of the validity of the stay
CANNOT be justly obtained.
REMEMBER
If you have a valid search warrant and you
find the item after the validity of the
warrant has expired, the person who took
such item must justify its taking
2. Discovery of the item must be made
inadvertently
The person did NOT try to find the object
or something else – you just saw it.
3. Object must be PATENTLY illegal
No matter how you look at it, the item is
illegal.
REMEMBER
If any one of these requisites is missing, then the
plain view doctrine is INAPPLICABLE
a. If the person was denied entry into the
premises, then the 1st requisite was NOT
met.
b. If the reason why the person is being
allowed into the premises ceases to exist,
then the intrusion is no longer valid.
c. If the person was looking for something
else and instead found the patently
illegal item, then the 2nd requisite was
NOT met.
d. If the item is not patently illegal (knives
or random ground herbs), it cannot be the
subject of taking because they are not
patently illegal (3rd requisite)
6. Terry Search aka Stop-and-Frisk Rule
Search conducted by police officers that based on
their training, they were able to see suspicious
criminal activity abound.
Terry v Ohio
Detective McFadden noticed that Terry, on a snowy
day, was only wearing 1 jacket but was sweating,
restless, and pacing the grounds. The detective
searched him and found cocaine. The admissibility
of the evidence was questioned but the SC ruled
that it was a valid warrantless search under the
stop-and-frisk rule because of the suspicious
activity shown by Terry. Because of the
extraordinary training undergone by police officers,
they can detect criminal activity so, for a limited
aspect, their search is valid. Further, police officers
can detect such activities better than ordinary
individuals – and that is their probable cause
justifying the search conducted.
REMEMBER
Not all individuals can conduct a Terry search –
only police officers who have undergone the right
training
There must be a series of suspicious criminal
activity – just 1 suspicious activity is not enough.
7. Search based on Expediency of Evidence
This is when, under exceptional circumstances, the
search becomes important.
People v Canton
Susan was in NAIA on the way to Saigon. When
she passed through the metal detector booth, it
beeped. The frisker asked if she could be searched,
and after agreeing, the former felt bags containing
granules all over her body. When asked to take it
out, Susan refused. The court ruled that the search
was made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure, which is allowed.
People v Santos
Santos was an outbound passenger in NAIA who
refused to have their luggage searched or even be
put through the metal detector and x-ray. Santos
eventually did, and it was discovered that the
luggage had contraband goods. Santos claimed
that it was an illegal search, but the SC ruled
otherwise because the safety and security of the
people have to be protected, thus having an
expedient reason to conduct such searches
(Another case)
In an instance where a person is about to board a
ferry, such search is also valid to ensure that the
person is not carrying any dangerous materials into
the ship.
12
 8. Blanket Exception
Searches conducted without reasonable
expectation of privacy is a valid search
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Case-to-case basis – it has to be proven that there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy to uphold the validity of
the search
Under the circumstances, would you expect that other
persons would know what you’re doing?
1. Locational Privacy
Privacy in a given geophysical space is violated
when there is trespassing
2. Informational Privacy
The kinds of information that you decide 3rd
persons can know or not know about you. Amount
of personal information you may want to divulge to
the public vis a vis the information you keep out of
public knowledge
3. Decisional Privacy
Privacy that relates to bodily autonomy (e.g. tattoos
or deciding whether or not to get married or have
kids)
REMEMBER
Not all searches and seizures are legal
If the searches and seizures are reasonable, then it is valid.
Otherwise, if there is no warrant and/or such search is not
under any of the exceptions provided by law and
jurisprudence, then it is invalid
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
A teacher of St Theresa’s College found racy pictures of
graduating HS students on Facebook drinking liquor and in
inappropriate clothes. Students were prevented from joining
the graduation ceremony so they challenged it on the writ of
habeas data and asked for the school’s access to the photos
to be removed and also claimed that such search was
violative of their rights to privacy. The SC ruled that they
had no reasonable expectation of privacy because they had
posted it publicly on Facebook so the burden of proof of the
students is to show that they had changed the default
settings from “public” to “private” – they were unable to do
so.
Morfe v Mutuc
The constitutionality of the SALN Law was questioned
because it apparently violates the individual’s right to
privacy. The SC disagrees because privacy has different
zones. Not all claims of privacy is prohibited from
government regulation because some information are
required for you to disclose to the public. The information
within the SALN are not core privacy principles and they are
subject to certain levels of regulation because the amount of
property one has is not as vital in terms of privacy compared
to (for example) your medical information.
Pollo v Constantino-David
There was a complaint filed before the Civil Service
Commission informing them that a Atty Pollo is accepting
private cases pending before the commission. He made all
those pleadings using his work computer so
Constantino-David authorized the seizure of the computer
and all the said pleadings were found. Pollo questioned the
validity of such search but the SC said that reasonable
expectation of privacy cannot be expected for materials
done in the workplace. First of all, in his employment, he
signed a contract that stipulated that there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy for the work he’s doing for the
Commission on the Commission’s computer. Secondly, there
is no reasonable expectation of privacy because he never set
a password and anyone can access his files.
Katz v US
There was a public telephone booth which the government
tapped into and found that Katz’s conversation with the
other person was something illegal and the police aimed to
use this conversation as evidence for Katz’s criminal
involvement. Katz questioned the validity of the search but
the SC ruled that it is irrelevant whether or not the
phonebooth was in a public place or whether Katz had shut
the phonebooth door. What matters is that Katz has a
reasonable expectation that the only person who hears him
is the person he intends to talk to. Hence, when other
persons are listening without the knowledge of the caller,
then it is a violation of their right. (This is why you have to
legally inform the person is on speakerphone)
Zulueta v CA (this is wrong)
Mr. Zulueta cheated on Mrs. Zulueta so the latter went to
her soon-to-be-ex-husband’s condo to take documents and
other evidence so that the court may be inclined to rule in
her favor. In this particular case, the SC ruled that the
evidence must be deemed inadmissible because the search
and seizure done was invalid.
A later case ruled that the ruling of Zulueta was wrong
because the person who conducted the search was the wife
- a private individual.
REMEMBER
If a private individual conducted the search, then the
application of the Bill of Rights will not take hold
Mr Zulueta should have instead filed for damages.
RA 4200 - Anti-Wire Tapping Law
Gaanan v IAC
Atty Pintor and Montebon were discussing their case (direct
assult) and decided to withdraw the case over the phone.
They agreed on the conditions of the withdrawal and Atty
Pintor instructed Montebon on where to bring the money.
Throughout the entire conversation, Atty Gaanan listened to
their conversation through an extension phone and
subsequently executed an affidavit stating that he heard
Atty. Pintor demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the
case for direct assault. The SC stated that Atty Gaanan is
NOT liable for RA 4200 because (1) the telephone is not
13
among those devices listed in the law; and (2) for there to FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
be a tap, there must ba a device being attached to the All rights have limits especially if it affects 3rd persons
telephone body itself.
Independent and Interrelated Rights
Ramirez v CA 1. Speech
It is not sufficient that only 1 person knows that the 2. Free Press
conversation is being recorded — all people involved in the 3. Assembly
conversation must know of the recording. Ramirez’s act of 4. Petition the Government for Redress of Grievance
recording the conversation without the other knowing is
sufficient violation of RA 4200. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The most important of them all as a civilized individual in a
democratic society

US v Bustos
Justice of the Peace Punsalan was said to have
committed acts of corruption so Bustos et. al. wrote
to the Executive Secretary to investigate and
Punsalan was found guilty. However, Judge Moir
found that the complaints filed had no basis so it
was eventually dismissed. As way of retaliation,
Justice Punsalan filed libel cases against these
people for besmirching his reputation as justiee of
the peace (some were acquitted and some were
convicted). The SC ruled that Bustos et. al. are not
liable for libel as they merely execised their right to
free speech.
They went through the right processes and used
proper means so the SC explained how the
freedom of expression was transposed to the
Philippine Islands and how the Philippines revolted
against Spain because of the suppression of this
right.

Watch Dog
Freedom of expression is the tool of the citizens
used to check on governmental excesses. Hence,
government officials must be open to some form of
criticism especially when it comes to their work

PROTECTED UNPROTECTED

Protected under the Recognized to have been

Constitution and these outside the Constitutional
cannot be abridged sphere of protection

Definition by Exclusion Governments and laws

So long as it is not
considered unprotected, it
is protected
have recognized that there
are certain forms of speech
that are not valid
expressions and are not
worthy of protection

REMEMBER
NOT ALL SPEECHES RECEIVE THE SAME LEVEL OF
PROTECTION
Speech of 1 is treated differently from the speech of
another. The level of protection afforded to you depends on
the kind of speech you are providing

14
PROTECTED SPEECHES UNPROTECTED SPEECHES
1. Political - usually regulated DEFAMATION
This is the highest form of speech thus it enjoys the This is prohibited because it aims to protect relational rights.
highest level of protection. This is because it No one has a vested right to have a good reputation.
relates to the citizen’s relationship with the state
Relational Rights
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC The right to have a possible or potential
In front of the cathedral were 2 tarpaulins: the 2nd relationship with others that defamatory acts
said “Team Buhay” and “Team Patay” in reference prevent. Ex. siniraan mo yung tao sa iba so those
to tho anti- and pro-RH Bill protesters respectively. people na sinabihan mo, ayaw na makipag-friends
COMELEC eventually sent a notice and letter for sa kanya — she lost the possibility of having a
the removal of the tarpaulin and threatened relationship with these people
criminal action. The SC stated that this act of the
COMELEC effectively breached the Diocese’s MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the
fundamental right to freedom of expression. Philippines
The Court recognized the hierarchy of importance The Muslim Organization filed a complaint for damages
of speech and how political speech must always against MVRS Publications for claiming that the Muslims
enjoy the highest form of protection. avoid eating pigs because they worship it like a god. The SC
stated that it was not libelous as it counts as freedom of
2. Religious - usually regulated expression. What’s being protected here is relational rights.
While it does not enjoy the same level of
protection as political speeches, it’s still of great Forms of Defamation
importance. a. Libel
When preachers speak, it is an exercise not only of Written form of defamation
his freedom of religion but also his freedom of b. Slander
expression Spoken form of defamation
c. Slander by deed
3. All Forms - usually regulated Actions done in order to defame
If neither political nor religious, it falls under this. d. Cyberlibel
Defamation through cybertechnology
4. Commercial - regulated, but not as much as the
others Elements of Defamation
Least protected yet still protected. These are 1. Imputation of crimes, vices, defects — real or
speeches made because the person is paid in order imaginary — or any act, omission, condition or
to forward one’s interest. circumstance on another
Crime Act
TV Commercials “Magnanakaw ka” “Ikaw yung
In the Philippines, in terms of commercials that nag-eskandalo”
advertise through comparison, they never blatantly Vice
mention the other brand — this is because the level “Sugarol ka” Omission
of protection is less as opposed to those higher up “Hindi kasi nagsalita
in the hierarchy of protected speeches Defect nung pinapagalitan tayo”
“Pilay ka”
Condition
Real/Imaginary “Ang hirap-hirap mo
Refers to the vice or naman”
defect — NOT the crime
Circumstance
“Anak ka sa labas”

2. Imputed against a natural/juridical or to the

memory of a dead person
Requirement of Identifiability
The person has to be identifiable by a person other
than the one being defamed.

15
 REMEMBER
What is being protected is the relational
interest/right of the defamed.
If the only people who can identify the person
defamed is the defamer, then there is no
relational right to be protected. This is why a
person other than the person defamed and the
person who uttered the defamatory information
has to be able to identify the person being
defamed.
Newsweek, Inc. v IAC
Newsweek ran an article about the sugarcane
plantation in Negros and how the workers are
treated inhumanely and even going as far as saying
that the farmers and millers are being killed.
Sugarcane landowners sued Newsweek but the SC
dismissed the case for lack of the requirement of
identifiability as Newsweek simply said “sugarcane
plantation landowners”
3. Imputation tends to cause dishonor, contempt, or
blackened the memory of the dead
TEND to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt
It may possibly cause the 3 above
4. Imputation is published
Publication
A defamatory statement is published when
another person, aside from the person being
defamed and the person uttering the defamatory
information, must have learned of such imputation
Jurisprudence
A letter mailed and sealed containing defamatory
statements is NOT counted as publication nor
libelous because it is expected that the only person
opening it is the receiver
Jurisprudence
If a writer created a libelous material, the editors
and publishers will also be held equally liable as
the publication of such material is deemed to be a
form of concurrence with the writer.
5. Imputation must be malicious
Malice
Bad faith or the intention to malign a person
Malice in Law
Any defamatory statements and imputations made
are presumed to be malicious. It need not be
proved since it is already proven by law when all
elements are satisfied.
Malice in Fact
This needs to be proven and comes into play when
malice in law disappears.
Yuchengco v The Manila Chronicle
Alfonso Yuchengo filed a case for damages against
the Chronicle Publishing Corporation for allegedly
libelous articles that they released in the Manila
Chronicle. The SC stated that malice is presumed
(malice in law) because their defense of qualified
privileged communication was not established.
And even if they were able to do so, the
prosecution was still able to prove malice in fact.
PROCEDURE IN FILING A LIBEL CASE
DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION WAS MADE
● Presumed malicious (Malice in Law)
DEFENSE 1: PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
1. Absolute
If you can prove that such speech is absolutely
privileged, then even with malice, the case will
be dismissed
When Congress is in session, law
makers’ speech are absolutely
protected so much so that a lawmaker
saying “bobo ka” to another lawmaker
is absolutely protected
2. Qualified
This removes the presumption of malice (malice
in law) If you can prove that it is qualified, the
prosecution may still prove malice in fact.
Fair and True Report
based on authentic records
Jurisprudence
A reporter spoke of a foreigner who
abused dogs in their area. This
foreigner was name-dropped. The SC
stated that it is not a fair and true
16
 OBSCENITY
report because the reporter never
Gonzales v Katigbak
sufficiently proved the basis for his
The Board of Censors wanted to gove an x-rating to the
story.
movie Kapit sa Patalim because it had a lot of explosions,
guns, and half-naked dancing women which the Board
Doctrine of Fair Commentary
considered obscene. The SC said that sex is not necessarily
Valid only if the subject matter is a matter of
obscene because sex itself is the force that drives
public concern
civilization. What makes it obscene is if it is put on such
“What can you say about the corruption in the
movies for the purposes of getting people horny.
country?”

Obscene Materials
Actual Malice Doctrine/Test
Materials that heighten the sense of prurient interest of
NY Times v Sullivan
people (aka make people horny) - such as porn - are those
As the defamer, you have to prove that this
that make sex obscene.
person is a public official or figure. The
prosecution needs to prove that the person who
Tests of Obscenity
uttered the defamatory imputation must have
1. Hicklin Test - eventually abandoned
known the falsity of the utterance and YET they
To determine whether or not material is obscene,
allowed it to be published (utter disregard for
isolated portions or the portions considered
truth)
obscene will be watched through the lens of the
more conservative sectors of society (old people,
Public Figure
kids, nuns, etc). If it elicits prurient interests, then it
Any person who the public has interest
is obscene.
in and the public has invested in
(celebrity, public official, athlete etc.)
2. Roth Test
Examine the material in its entirety through the
Ayer Production v Capulong
lens of an average, reasonable person applying
Austrailian production wanted to make a
contemporary community standards. It must not
documentary on EDSA I but Enrile did not
elicit prurient interests.
consent to the making of the film claiming that
his privacy rights is being violated. The SC said
Jurisprudence
that he has no claim for privacy as he is a public
Photos of the people of the indigenous
figure.
communities in Ifugao (topless women) were
distributed, and complaints were filed saying these
DEFENSE 2: TRUTH
were obscene. This passes the Roth Test because it
Defamer has to prove that they have good and justifiable
follows contemporary community standards, which
reason for doing so — otherwise, conviction is afoot
is the standard of their culture.
a. Limited to imputation of a crime
(If convicted of murder tapos tinawag mong
3. 3-prong Miller Test (2006)
mamamatay tao — dismissed)
Miller v California
b. Must be with good reason
a. Pass the Roth Test

b. Does the material fall under the definition

of applicable law?
i. If a law says that such material is
obscene, then it is obscene

c. Does not offer serious literary, scientific,

artistic, or religious value
Statue of David
It may be showing his private parts but
since it has serious artistic value, it cannot
be considered obscene.

If the material has all 3 of these characteristics,

then the material is obscene. If any of them are
lacking, then it is not obscene.

17

Validity of Government Regulation
The government is allowed to regulate certain forms of
expression
Factors to be Considered
What form of expression was regulated
Strict Scrutiny Standard
Presumption
Regulation is presumed to be invalid
Speech Prove
Compelling state interest
Means
Least restrictive
Clear and Present Danger Rule
There is an evil sought to be
prevented by virtue of the regulation
of the expression and that
danger/evil is something that is clear
and present now
Pag nag-rally, baka magkakagulo =
this doesn't pass the test
Dangerous Tendency Test
Govt. action to regulate expression is
valid if such expression tends to
cause the evil sought to be
prevented (a possibility for it to
happen)
Usually used for criticisms hurled
All Else against the courts
In Re: Macasaet
Macasaet, a publisher, used his
column to ask for the resignation of
the lady justice for bribery
allegations. This test was used as
the speech tends to cause people to
question the administration of
justice.
Balancing of Interest Rule
When the govt. itself has an interest
to protect (national security, public
order, etc.)
Usually used when 2 rights are
present and only 1 can be protected
FREE PRESS
Important in a democratic society as it makes sure that
government acts within the confines of law and that they
are doing their jobs
Chavez v Gonzales - Hello Garci case
Sec. Gonzales threatened to remove the franchise of
whichever news outlet decided to release the Hello Gaci
tapes. This was in violation of te right to free press.
4 Rights of the Press
1. Against Prior Restraint
Any action that is considered prior restraint is
presumed invalid. The press cannot be censored or
dictated on what they are to say
Prior Restraint
Censorship or things you are not allowed to say
2. Against Subsequent Punishment
The right of the press against possible
ramifications (consequences) after a speech or
reporting. If such expression by the press is nt
found to be libelous then there must be no
subsequent punishment.
In Terrorem Effect
The chilling effect of possible consequences or
subsequent punishment. This is what this right
aims to prevent.
3. Right of the Press to Information
The right to obtain information
4. Right to Publication
The right to publish and publicize their work
Babst v NIB
The military gave invitation letters to the different members
of the media, which said that if they refused to come to the
gala, there would be horrible consequences. The SC said
that this was subsequent punishment as the only media
people given this invitation were those who spoke
negatively of the government.
Valid Regulation of Expression
1. Content Neutral
Imposed on expression as to the incident of speech
or regulation aka the circumstances surrounding it
(ex. MTRCB)
Test: Clear and Present Danger Rule
2. Content-based
Regulation is based on the material itself. Since this
is censorship, it is presumed to be invalid as it is
limiting.
New Sounds v Dy
A radio station was known to be critical of the Dy’s
of Isabela province so the latter transformed the
18
 land where the transmitters were found into Heckler’s Veto
agricultural land so that no commercial activities Nanapaw or talking over someone
are to be allowed. It was initially assumed to be a A doctrine where a person is prevented from expressing his
content-neutral regulation but it was actually opinion or speech by stating his own
content-based regulation under the guise of
content-neutral regulation. Because they were FACIAL CHALLENGE
closed down due to the content they released REAL PARTY OF
Anyone
about the Dys, it was proven to be a scheme. INTEREST
QUESTIONED Entire law
APPLICATION Fundamental Rights
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY
Reyes v Bagatsing Overbreadth Doctrine
The Anti-Bases Coalition wanted to raly in front of the US The void law prevents an evil but due to its language, it also
embassy to raise their opposition against the American impairs other rights.
Military bases in the PH. They asked for a raly permit from
the mayor which was denied because it might raise a ruckus.
The SC stated that the right to assembly is part of one’s
right to expression and because of this, if it will be
regulated, one must use the clear and present danger test.
There was no clear evidence of any clear and present
danger so the rally was allowed.

Public Assembly Act

This arose from the Reyes v Bagatsing case.
This details the manner in which a person may exercise the
freedom to assembly.

Do you NEED a rally permit to rally?

No. You do not need a permit to rally but what you
need to get is a permit to use public
property/space.

How to get a permit

File an application for a permit from from the local
chief executive (mayor)
1. If granted = yehey
2. If not acted within 5 days, deemed
approved
3. If denied, mayor must
a. Give a justification based on the
clear and present danger test
b. Give an alternative venue (ex.
diff. place)

No need for a permit when

1. Rallying in a private place or property
2. Freedom park
a. The Public Assembly Act
requires the LGU to have 1
assembly park considered as a
freedom park – otherwise, all the
parks in the local government
will be turned into a freedom
park
3. State University/College
a. Permission will be obtained from
the chancellor or school
administrator

19
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
This includes all kinds of religions – even belief systems or
those that are not considered as established religions are
protected by this
ART III SEC 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.
Non-Establishment Clause
This clause simply states that no law shall be passed
favoring 1 religion or descriminating another. Fr. Bernas
states that the stae is prohibited from establishing a state
religion.
Draws its strength from Art II Sec 6 which states
that the separation of church and state shall be
inviolable.
Free Exercise Clause
a. Freedom to believe
This is an absolute right and can never be subject
to government regulation.
Why is it an absolute right?
It does not affect 3rd persons so the
government cannot regulate the freedom
to believe
b. Freedom to act on one’s belief
From the autonomy of the mind, thoughts can be
translated into actions – and these actions can be
regulated by the government especially because
these affect 3rd persons.
REMEMBER
Government only regulates actions derived from beliefs
If a person’s religion states that killing 5 people in their
lifetime would grant them a place in heaven and eventually
killed 5 people, it is subject to regulation as they have
already acted on such belief.
Ecclesiastical Matters/Affairs
Refers to religious doctrines or dogma.
Courts CANNOT rule on ecclesiastical matters because it is
in the province of religion.
(ex. Challenging the validity of the Holy Trinity or filing a
complaint for one’s excommunication)
REMEMBER
If a priest rents a location for a Chrismas party and he
refused to pay for it, he cannot claim that it is an
ecclesiastical affair because he entered a contract of lease
which is a civil affair.
Defenses of Freedom of Religion
a. Strict Neutrality Test
When there is a government regulation, the
government cannot give exceptions aka if bawal sa
law, bawal sa religion mo
b. Benevolent Neutrality Test - used in the PH
Allows freedom of religion to be an exception to
the law, provided that there is
a. The existence of the belief
b. The level of conviction to the belief
c. Compelling state interest to forward the
regulation
It carves out an exception for a particular case or
belief system (case-to-case basis)
Estrada v Escritor
Alejandro Estrada requested for an investigation of rumors
that Soledad Escritor, court interpreter, is living with a man
not her husband. Escritor said that she is a Jehova’s Witness
and they believe that if there is an impediment to marry,
they can sign a Kasunduan stating that once the impediment
is gone, they can marry. The lower court found her guilty but
the SC stated that she was not as the Kasunduan actually
protects and guarantees marriage which the law protects.
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
The JW students were expelled for refusing to stand at
attention before the flag and sign the national anthem; and
it was against their religion to honor symbols. It was argued
that the compelling state interest here has something to do
with patriotism. The SC stated that it was NOT a compelling
state interest as there are other ways to show patriotism so
the expulsion was reversed the expulsions
Aglipay v. Ruiz and Peralta v. Philippine Postal Corp
The postage stamp had a religious symbol on it and it was
questioned based on the non-establishment clause because
the mere fact that the state is producing stamps with these
symbol shows that they are favoring a particular religion.
The SC states that they are not promoting the religion but
the particular event that uses those symbols which happen
to have something to do with the religion.
Valmores v. Achacoso
Valmores is a medstudent and a 7th day Adventists which
means he does not work on Saturdays. He asked that he
take his midterms on a day other than Saturday as
scheduled but the school did not allow it and failed the
exam resulting to his expulsion. The SC, applying the
benevolent neutrality test, he had to be given the chance to
take it on a given day as there was no compelling state
interest for him to only take it on a Saturday. The SC stated
that the school must give way to the freedom of religion and
reversed his expulsion.
American Bible Society v. City of Manila
The City of Manila imposed a sales tax for every bible sold.
This was questioned on the grounds of freedom of religion
20
as it prevents the people from buying the bible. The SC said LIBERTY OF ABODE & FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
no and that there would be a violation on the freedom of
religion if the imposition of the tax is a precondition to the ART III SEC 6
sale (pay the tax before you can buy a bible) because the tax
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
payment becomes a prerequisite to access the religion. In
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
this case, the tax merely becomes a consequence of one’s
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
exercise to freedom of religion – hence, subject to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national
regulation.
security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
REMEMBER
Is the regulation a prerequisite for one to exercise Liberty of Abode Freedom of Movement
religion? Right to choose where you Right to travel
If the answer is yes, then it is a violation of your free want to live or establish
exercise to religion. If not, then it is a mere consequence of your residence
your exercise and is subject to regulation
LIMITATIONS
In Re: Letter of Tony Valenciano This can be exercised This will not be impaired
In the basement of the Hall of Justice in Quezon City, every within the limits EXCEPT for public safety,
lunch time, a Catholic mass is held for 30 mins. Valenciano prescribed by law which public health, or national
questions this stating that it is a violation of the means Congress may security
non-establishement clause because only 1 religion is determine places which
benefitting from the use of the basement. are livable Ex. During COVID, people
were prevented from
The SC states that there is no violation because: If you act within the limits travelling
1. The Ph culture is dominantly Catholic of the law, then your rights
2. There is a reservation form/process which anyone cannot be impaired
can access – these Catholics just happen to get the EXCEPT by lawful order
schedule first. But aside from this, literally anyone of the court
can reserve that location at that time slot.
Ex. When destierro is
J.Leonen’s dissent: imposed on you and your
There must be no exercise of religion in public crime was against your
spaces especially in the halls of justice as that neighbor, you have to
particular religion is given preference, at least for move
that day and that time

Cuenco v Salazar
Conscientious Objector
The maid was prevented from going home due to debts and
1. A person who refuses to comply with government
the Court ruled that this act was in violation of her right to
regulation on the basis of religion
travel (to get away) and abode (she does not want to live
Ex. RH Law - doctor may refuse to prescribe
there anymore).
contraceptives

Villavicencio v. Lukban
2. Pacifists
“We are a government of laws and not of men”
Against any form of war – this is based on a belief
Women of ill repute (prostitutes) in Manila were being sent
system
to Davao pursuant to Manila’s “Clean, Healthy, and Moral
Must still comply with the requirement of
City of Manila” project. Some of the women went back to
benevolent neutrality.
Manila and complained to the SC. The SC agreed with them
saying that they cannot be forced to live in a place they do
not want to as it is a violation of their liberty to abode and to
travel.

Gudani v. Senga
2 soldiers stationed in Bagio were invited by the Blue
Ribbon Committee to attend a hearing. They attended it,
leaving their post, and they were Court marshaled and
eventually removed. The SC stated that it was not a
violation of their freedom of movement because soldiers are
required to guard their posts for security reasons. Hence,

21
there was a valid distinction between the military and Pia Cayetano Law
civilians. Further, they violated the Chain of Command. Right against detention for non-payment of
medical bills. People in wards need only pledge or
Zabal v. Duterte mortgage property. Private rooms are NOT
Boracay was closed and cleaned up and the petitioners covered.
questioned the order of Duterte and how it curtailed their
freedom to travel. The SC sided with Duterte as the RIGHT TO INFORMATION
prohibition was done because public health was their main
concern. ART III SEC 7

The right of the people to information on matters of

Watchlist and Hold Departure Orders
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
Once there is a criminal case against you, your freedom to
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
travel is necessarily limited
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
Balancing of Interest
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
a. Interest of accused to be presumed
such limitations as may be provided by law.
innocent
b. Interest of the prosecution to prosecute
criminal offenses against accused Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
Legaspi wanted to know the Civil Service Exam scores of 3
REMEMBER people who are a part of the Government and he heard that
Only courts can issue hold departure orders these people did not actually pass. The 3 claimed that their
right to privacy will be violated. The SC allowed the release
Criminal case = freedom to travel is necessarily limited because they recognized the right of the public to
This is so that the accused does not escape the information on matters of public concern as only
jurisdiction of the court competent individuals should serve in the government –
otherwise, it would endanger public service
If the accused is on bail and leaves the county without the
permission of the court, a hold departure order and REMEMBER
warrant of arrest will be ordered by the Court Right to Information is different from right to ACCESS
information
Genuino v. de Lima While both are tools for transparency, they are different
There was no case in court yet. The SC stated that the fiscal rights
cannot give hold departure orders yet but there are rules Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law,
promulgated for hold departure cases in case no information the State adopts and implements a policy of full
filed in court yet. That is, the prosecutor applies for a hold public disclosure of all its transactions involving
departure order with the court as only courts can issue such public interest (Art II Sec 28)
orders
TOOLS OF TRANSPARENCY
Pichay v. Sandiganbayan Right to ACCESS
Pichay claims that the right to travel may only be impaired Right to Information
Information
when charged with certain crimes (terrorism, plunder, etc)
but the SC disagreed saying that your right to travel may be Government is mandated Right of the individual to
curtailed even if the crime committed were not of those to readily show and demand from government
cited by Pichay. As long as you are an accused in a criminal disclose records and access to certain
indictment, your right to travel is necessarily curtailed. information to the public – information
even if the public does not
Marcos v. Manglapus ask for it Passive Right
Marcos Sr wanted to return to the Ph but Cory did not allow No demand then
him for reasons of public security and safety. Marcos says Ex. Organizational government has no
that this is a curtailment of his right to travel – more structure, projects, budget obligation to provide it
specifically, right to return. The SC disagreed for the reasons
Scope Full Public Disclosure
given by Cory (National Security and Public Concern)
While it covers matters of The scope that the
public interest, it also government agency may
Manila Doctor’s Hospital v. Chua
covers materials release is limited to those
Patients who were unable to pay their bills were detained.
containing official matters of public interest
The SC said that this is not allowed as it violates the right to
publications and
travel.
documents of public

22
 TOOLS OF TRANSPARENCY
Right to ACCESS
Right to Information
Information PRIVILEGES THAT LIMIT RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND
ACCESS TO IT
agencies (letters,
PRESIDENTIAL DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
communications, etc.) COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE

Confidential Covers not merely the

RIGHT TO ACCESS Information that the conversations but also the
REMEMBER President may say to deliberations of the
Can you demand any document from government? NO another person in the bodies including advisory
course of the conversation opinions coming from 3rd
persons or their
Executive Privilege
Conversations that are part reccommendations
The privilege of the government to withhold certain
of decision making and
information from the people (media included), the Courts,
deliberations (and similar
and Congress (ex. Media blackout during times of war)
communications) are
covered by this privilege.
This exempts the Executive from disclosure of certain
information in situations that warrant such withholding in Ex. Orders of the president to
order to protect the public interest and avoid the national security advisor to
compromising public security under justifiable attack a certain country
circumstances. MILITARY AND STATE
TREATIES
SECRETS
Only given to the Executive due to the high level of
responsibility given to them as Chief of Staff of the Military Treaty-making involves Military and State Secrets
among other things. concessions and cannot be divulged to the
negotiations. public in order to protect
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita national security
The Senate questioned PGMA’s EO 464 which prohibited all Releasing it to the public
officials in the executive department from attending any will let the other party
Senate inquiry without the consent of the President. The SC know our country needs
says that the coverage of executive privilege must not be so and they will act
expansive that it covers all those people – only those people accordingly so that it
within the operational proximity of the President must be benefits them.
covered by such laws – it cannot be “everyone in the
executive” as they are not part of the deliberative or Insofar as treaties are
decision-making process of the president concerned, the application
of the right to information
Akbayan Citizens Party v. Aquino cannot be allowed.
JPETA is treaty that allows garbage from Japan to be INFORMATION PENDING
brought to the Philippines for a certain amount of money INFORMER’S PRIVILEGE
INVESTIGATION
and the ACP wanted to see the offers and counter-offers
that led to the agreement. The SC stated that this is part of One cannot compel the Divulging such information
privilege and they cannot ask for it. courts to disclose the would prejudice ongoing
identities od investigation and public
Valmonte v. Belmonte whistleblowers or order
Valmonte wanted to get documents from GSIS on the sumbungeros for their
identity of individuals who were able to get clean loans safety
(loans without any guarantees or mortgages or pledges or
collaterals) from GSIS from the recommendation of Imelda Valid Limitations to Right to Access Information
Marcos. GSIS objected on the grounds of the privacy rights 1. One may ask for information but not dictate what
of the owners of these loan accounts. kind of information
The SC stated that there is no privacy consideration Not processed information as it is not the
because the loans obtained from the GSIS are retirement responsibility of government to process
funds of individuals, and since its a trust fund for the information but to simply provide it
public, the public has interest in determining who their (See Valmonte v Belmonte)
people are – hence, the freedom to information must be 2. Time and availability
respected. HOWEVER, while there is a right to information Within office hours
petitioner has no right to processed information – meaning, 3. Court records
what they will get is raw data. Only the parties of the case may see the records

23
 concerning their case – especially active cases due People v. Ferrer
to the sub judice rule Ferrer challenged the old subversion law that criminalizes
and punishes mere membership to the CCP. The SC struck
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION down the law on several grounds including the right to
association.
ART III SEC 8
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
The right of the people, including those employed in the
Dale was a gay member of the Boyscouts who attained the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations,
eagle scout title (apparently its a high position). Because of
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
his gender identity, he was kicked out of the boyscouts. He
abridged.
argues that he has the right to associate with the Boyscouts
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY of America otherwise it would be discrimination. The US SC
said that while he does have that right, the association also
The group/association is Concerns expression while
has the right to determine who its members would be.
formed not as a form of coming together as a
expression but in order to group
In Re: Edilion
achieve a certain goal
Edilion did not want to pay his IBP dues and claims that if he
(unions, association,
has the right to associate, he also has the right to NOT
societies, fan club,
associate. The SC disbarred him because association to the
organizations, etc.)
IBP is forced and required for a noble cause and a public
purpose.
Public and Private Sectors
Both public and private sectors are allowed to form unions

Strikes
Most powerful tool of unions as they are used to force
employers to give concessions as to monetary and
non-monetary benefits

Government Unions and Public Sectors

Unlike the private sector, they are NOT ALLOWED
to form part of strikes as it would jeopardize public
service and, since these people are hired by the
government, they are essentially forcing the
government to give into their demands.

Purpose of Unions in Public Sectors

For purposes beneficial to the association and professional
upliftment of members (ex. Employee development
programs)

Rights of the Association itself

Associations have the right to determine who its members
should be. Their qualifications for memberships are valid.

REMEMBER
Freedom to Associate does not involve the freedom of an
individual to join.

Right to NOT Associate

People do have a right to disassociate but not when
membership to such associations is mandatory. This can
adobe negated by public interest.

REMEMBER
One’s right to disassociate and not be included is negated
by public interest and may be forced upon you.

24
THE CONTRACT CLAUSE
ART III SEC 10
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed
Impairment of Contracts
A contract is impaired when governmental actions
changes/lessens the efficacy of contracts or its binding
powers or the rights and obligations of the parties
The Constituion recognizes the sanctity of agreements
between parties.
Impairments must be Present and Substantial
Parties were lessened, certain remedies were removed,
rights and obligations between parties are lessened, new
conditions are imposed
REMEMBER
If the law impairs contracts, then such law is invalid
The inherent powers of the government (police power,
taxation, eminent domain) are deemed written in every
contract so much so that any changes made in the contract
in the exercise of such powers is valid and cannot be
considered an impairment
Ortigas & Co., v. Feati Bank
Ortigas challenged the zoning area of Mandaluyong which
changed the zoning map from residential to commercial.
Since they were selling residential lots, this would impair
the contracts they have with the buyers of the lots. The SC
explained that zoning ordinances are police power measures
and these are deemed written in every contract – so if
anything in the contract changes due to the inherent powers
of the government, then it is not considered an impairment.
This weakened the power of the contract clause.
Manila Electric Company v. Province of Laguna
A contract between Laguna and several companies like
Meralco for purposes of tax exemptions. The SC stated that
taxations and exemptions are inherent powers but since
Laguna entered into a contract with Meralco, the province
has shed its sovereign capacity and became a private entity.
Because of this, they cannot, by mere ordincence, change
the contracts they both voluntary entered into as it would
amount to impairment
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
ART III SEC 11
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
A man handwrites a petition on a yellowpad
This is an example of access to courts. A man must not be
denied access to the courts simply because he is poor.
Re: Request of National Committee on Legal Aid
A resolution of the IBP the National Committee on Legal Aid
(NCLA) to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing,
docket, and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in
the various IBP chapters; stating that if the PAO (Public
Attorney’s Office) are free from filing and docket fees, so
should cases from the IBP Legal Aid Program.
The SC praised the NCLA and granted the request.
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi
Prioreschi, the representative of Good Shepherd (ube jam
makers), needed to sue someone and they wished to be
exempted from the docket fees claiming that since they are
a non-profit organization and foundation that works for
indigent and underprivileged people, they must also have
free access to court. This was denied by the SC because
while free access to court cannot be denied by reasons of
poverty, it can be denied for other reasons. More
importantly, Good Shepherd is a corporations and
corporations, while they may experience losses, do not
experience poverty. Furthermore, poverty is a state that only
natural persons can experience.
25
RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
ART III SEC 12
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
What is a suspect?
A suspect is one who is believed to be the author of the
crime. No information has been filed against you yet in
Court.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
Is the extrajudicial confession valid?
(look at the 4 requirements)
Is the person under custodial investigation?
(is liberty restrained?)
Is the person a suspect?
Rationale
To prevent the awesome coercive powers of the State into
forcing a person to falsely admit to the commission of the
offense simply because they were forced to
MIRANDA RIGHTS
1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to counsel
3. Right to be informed of your right to be silent and
your right to be counsel
Effect of Violation of the Miranda Rights
Whatever evidence is obtained without the suspect
being read their Miranda Rights will be
inadmissible and must be excluded
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained in violation of an individual's
constitutional rights cannot be used against them in a court
of law. During custodial investigation, a person is thrust in
an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
interrogation procedures with potential for physical and
psychological compulsion.
REMEMBER
The mere fact that a person was not Mirandized does not
mean that the suspect will be acquitted — it simply means
that everything they said will not be used against them
RIGHT AGAINST ISOLATION, BEING PLACED IN
DETENTION, TORTURE
This is designed to protect the suspect from involuntary,
admitting, willingly or unwillingly, to offenses leveled
against the suspect
When are you considered a suspect?
Custodial Investigation
No longer a general inquiry as to the commision or offense
More specific detailed investigation to an individual
Restraint
There is a restraint, in whatever degree or capacity,
on a person’s liberty.
1. Mere invitation to the police station
2. Suspect being questioned in the police car
and being prevented to leave
3. Suspect being told to stay in their house
and not leave
ADMISSION CONFESSION
When facts are merely When admission of such
confirmed material facts that
constitute an offense
Yes, I was there Yes, I killed him
REMEMBER
Admission does not equate or constitute a confession
Res Inter Alias Acta
A confession is only binding upon the confessant UNLESS it
is proven that the confessant is a part of a conspiracy — in
that case, the act (and confession) of one is the act of all
People v Cachuela
Nabligas, one of the conspirators in the crime, confessed to
the crime and mentioned his co-conspirators as well. It was
argued that Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession, which he
later repudiated, should not be admitted as evidence against
the other apellants. The court held that the confession was
inadmissible against the appellants by virtue of "res inter
alias acta.” The confession, considered hearsay against the
appellants, was binding only on Nabilgas, and its admission
against the co-accused would prejudice their rights.
26
Valid Extrajudicial Confession
The prosecution must prove that the EJC was obtained with
these 4 elements present (otherwise, it is a mere scrap of
paper):
1. In writing
a. Usually typed out by the investigating
officer while suspect dictates their
confession
b. After it is typed out, counsel must have
the suspect read it and confirm if
everything in it is correct
2. Voluntary
a. No sign of coercion and the lawyer must,
once again, inform the subject of the
consequences of such confession
3. Express
a. It cannot be implied
4. With assistance of competent and independent
counsel
a. Counsel must be present to be able to
advice and assist from the 1st question
during the custodial investigation to the
signing of the confession
b. Competence and independence is on a
case-to-case basis
c. If the lawyer works for the police, then the
PAO lawyers may be asked to assist the
suspect instead
d. It is up for the defense or the suspect to
prove that the assisting lawyer is not
competent or independent because there
is a presumption of regularity when a
suspect says that they were assisted by
counsel.
These elements are needed since the guarantees of fair
play and due process provided by court proceedings are
missing. Extrajudicial confessions are generally avoided for
the same reasons.
People v Cachuela
For counsel to be considered effective and vigilant; they
must be present from the 1st question during the custodial
investigation up to the signing of the confession
RA 7438 - Non-lawyers as counsel
Case-to-case basis. There are instances wherein ordinary
people (mayor, someone of good moral standing, etc.) are
allowed to appear in place of lawyers especially in places in
the country where there are no lawyers
People v Ordoño
EO 309 - Bantay Bayan
The Bantay Bayan is an accredited auxiliary of the
PNP and are recognized by the LGUs to perform
functions of peace and order preservation at the
barangay level.
Any inquiry made by them has the color of
state-related objective. People v Lagua
Put simply, inquiries made by the barangay tanod
are considered to be investigated by a person of
authority.
REMEMBER
T/F A suspect who was not read their Miranda Rights
before giving an EJC is immediately acquitted
FALSE. It does not automatically lead to an acquittal if the
prosecution’s evidence of that suspect’s guilt is not merely
based on the EJC.
What if 1 requisite of a valid EJC was missing? Would
they be immediately acquitted?
Not necessarily for the same reasons stated in the previous
question.
In what instance will a suspect be acquitted based on an
invalid EJC?
When the prosecution’s only evidence revolves around the
EJC
Spontaneous Utterance
When a suspect voluntarily or spontaneously confesses to
their crime, then there is no violation of the Miranda Rights
— hence, admissible as evidence.
People v Malngan
Confession to the barangay captain, without satisfying the 4
elements of a valid extrajudicial confession, is inadmissible
in Court. However the confession she made to her neighbor
Mercedita and in her interview with news reporter Carmelita
is admissible as it was a confession made to a private
person absent any form of coercion.
People v Ulit
Feliciano confessed to the Brgy Chairman to his crime of
qualified rape through a Sinumpaang Salaysay. When it was
being presented as evidence, he claimed that it was
inadmissible as he was forced and coerced into signing the
same. The SC stated that though he was not assisted by
counsel at the time he gave his statement to the barangay
chairman and when he signed the same, it is still admissible
in evidence against him because he was not under arrest nor
under custodial investigation when he gave his statement.
Moreover, the barangay chairman is not considered a law
enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12(1)
and (3) of Article III.
REMEMBER
No coercion in spontaneous utterances
The rights of suspects protect the suspect from being
coerced into admitting — in spontaneous utterances, there
is no coercion whatsoever. Anything said to private
individuals or the media is admissible
27
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Anything obtained verbally from the suspect will be
inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against you.
What’s being avoided here is the undue coercion given by
the State against the lowly accused.
REMEMBER
Safeguard Fairness
The bill of rights, insofar as the rights of the accused and
the rights of suspects, is the only shield against the
awesome powers of government.
RIGHT TO BAIL
What is bail?
A security for an accused to temporarily or provisionally
enjoy their liberty while a pending case is heard against
them
A mechanism that solves the problem of the government
wanting to prosecute cases against individuals on one hand
and, on the other, the right to be presumed innocent on the
charges against them.
Security
To assure the Court that the accused will show up
in Court when needed.
REMEMBER
EXCESSIVE bails will NOT be required. Likewise,
arraignment cannot be made a condition to the grant of bail
Kinds of Bail
1. Cash bond
When the accused puts up cash which will be
considered their security bond (Sir’s note: usually,
you can ask if the bail amount can be reduced in
half since you're paying in cash anyway)
If the accused jumps bail, the cash is forfeited in
favor of the government.
2. Surety bond
Paying a premium in a surety company and such
bond will answer to any liability a person may incur
If the person jumps bail, bail will be canceled, a
warrant of arrest will be issued, and the company
will be asked to produce your body (sometimes
through bounty hunters)
3. Property bond
Usually a title to a parcel of land or a car.
If the person jumps bail, the property will be
forfeited in favor of the government.
4. Recognizance (Recognizance Act of 2012)
Usually given to indigents.
The security given is on the word or character of a
person. Another person of good moral character
and of good standing in the community will vouch
for the accused, join, and remind the accused if
there is a hearing.
If the person jumps bail, the person who vouched
will be one who will be imprisoned.
REMEMBER
Bail can only be granted if the accused is in CUSTODY.
The accused must first surrender or be imprisoned before
asking for bail.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
These are instances where bail is automatically awarded to
the accused — no need to ask for it
First level Courts - penalty less than 6 years.
Bail is always a matter of right before or after
conviction in the first level court
Regional Trial Court (RTC) - penalty 6 years and
above
Before conviction only and when the penalty
imposed is NOT reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death
Before conviction and penalty is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or death BUT evidence of guilt is
NOT strong
REMEMBER
The mere penalty being reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death DOES NOT DETERMINE
whether the case is bailable or non-bailable. It is
based on the existence and strength of the
evidence of guilt.
BAIL AS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
What makes is NOT a matter of right is the existence or
non-existence of the evidence of guilt — if strong, then it is
NOT a matter of right
Regional Trial Court (RTC) - penalty 6 years and
above
Before conviction and penalty is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or death and evidence of guilt is
strong
After conviction and penalty is more than 12 years
After conviction and penalty is 6-12 years WITH
circumstances
Leviste v CA
Even if there are no circumstances present to disqualify him
for bail, it is still upon the discretion of the Court whether or
not bail would be granted
Petition for Bail
The purpose for this is to establish the kind of evidence that
is present and whether or not such evidence is strong.
Summary Hearing
During a summary hearing, the prosecution will
establish evidence of guilt. There is no need for a
full-blown trial nor a need to present all pieces of
28
 evidence — merely sampling or presentation of
sufficient evidence is enough
“Evidence of guilt is strong”
A great presumption of guilt where there is
sufficient reason to believe that the person is the
author of the offense.
REMEMBER
Evidence of guilt
NOT strong = bail becomes a matter of right.
Strong = bail will be denied as it is not a matter of
right anymore
BAIL IS DISCRETIONARY
The courts may or may not grant bail
Regional Trial Court (RTC) - penalty 6 years and
above
After conviction where the penalty is 6-12 years,
and there are no circumstances present under Rule
114
Rule 114 - Circumstances
a. Recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of
reiteration
b. Previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated
the conditions of his bail without valid
justification
c. Committed the offense while under
probation, parole, or conditional pardon
d. Circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail
e. There is undue risk that he may commit
another crime during the pendency of the
appeal
Enrile v Sandiganbayan
Bail is always a matter of exercise of judicial discretion
EXTRADITION
An extraterritorial administration of judicial proceedings
from one country to another wherein one country
respectfully requests the other for the arrest of a particular
person for purposes of trial in that other country. This is a
sui generis proceeding
Sui Generis
A class of its own – not necessarily a judicial nor
administrative proceeding.
Hence, although there is a deprivation of liberty,
the rights of the accused are not totally awarded to
the person in question.
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS
The SC realizes and recognizes that there are certain
instances wherein, even if there is neither a judicial
proceeding nor judicial warrant, arrests made via
administrative proceedings may be made
(ex., Deportation proceedings, quarantine proceedings)
This is not offensive under “unreasonable searches and
seizures” under Sec. 2
Pacta sunt servanda
All states must, in good faith, comply with their contractual obligations
Since the proceedings are not with the Philippines but in
another court, then the Ph, as a party, must respect the
judicial requests coming from another country and
implement the same.
Doctrine of Dual Criminality
Only acts and omissions considered criminally punishable
both in the Philippines and in the requesting state may be
the subject of extradition proceedings.
Doctrine of Specialty
An extraditee may only be extradited for offenses in which
the requesting state charged the accused and in which the
accused surrendered.
HK v Olalia
Bail, as a matter of right, is not applicable in extradition
proceedings so Olalia cannot demand for bail. This is
because bail is used to obtain temporary liberty upon
showing that the accused is not a flight risk.
However, the SC also recognized that, while the right to bail
is not available to an extraditee, it does not bar the
extraditee from filing a petition for bail.
REMEMBER
Presumption of Flight-Risk
The mere fact that the accused is an extraditee (has gone
against the law of the requesting state and is in hiding)
means that there is a high probability of flight
Petition for Bail for an Extraditee
Quantum of Evidence: Clear and Convincing
Evidence more than preponderant but less than proof
beyond reasonable doubt. A stronger form or level of
29
evidence is needed specifically because of that presumption RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
of flight risk.
Rule 115 of Rules of Court
Insofar as ordinary bail is concerned, the prosecutor only What is an accused?
needed to prove that evidence of guilt is strong. An information is already filed against you in Court

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND FORM

OF ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
During arraignment, information must be complete —
otherwise, it is quashable

Arraignment
When a person is appraised of the indictment aka
when they are being informed of the case filed
against them. An important requisite of this is that
the person must understand.

PERSON MAY ONLY BE ARRAIGNED AND

SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE
INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION
This is to enable the accused to formulate his defense
intelligibly

VARIANCE DOCTRINE
While a person may be charged of an offense, another
offense may be filed against them so long as the offense is
necessarily included in the offense charged

Aggravating Circumstances
If an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in
the information, even if it was proven to be present
during the trial, it cannot be appreciated as it would
violate the right of the accused. Most especially if
it’s a qualified aggravating circumstance because
no form of mitigating circumstance can offset it

Mitigating Circumstance
If not alleged in the information, it can still be taken
as it would be in favor of the accused (Doctrine of
Pro Reo)

Sufficiency in the Complaint

The accused CANNOT be convicted if the allegations
against him are incomplete.

On dates alleged in the complaint

GR: There is no need to give the exact date
EXP: The mere error in the date does NOT nullify
the acts of the accused
EXP to EXP: If the error in the date is so much that
it prevents the accused from knowing where the
accused is at that time, then that would constitute
a violation of his rights.

30
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT Waiver of Right to Counsel
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and its evidence SC recognizes that if the accused fully knows their right and
may not be allowed to gain strength from the weakness of the consequence of which AND well-versed in criminal
the defense proceedings, the waiver of the right is valid

BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF EVIDENCE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC

Never changes – always
with the person where the
onus probandi is placed
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Highest level of evidence.
Does not require absolute certainty but moral certainty
Public
Shifts form one party to
Always on record for the purposes of transparency. Public is
another based on evidence
engaged and may hold the lawyers and judges accountable.
However, the public may be removed from the trial
when the testimony of the case is of sensitive issue
to preserve the dignity of the victim (ex. Sexual
assault cases, child witness)

MORAL CERTAINTY REASONABLE DOUBT Impartial

Based on the evidence If doubt is entertained as
presented, the court is to the innocence of the
convinced that the accused, then maybe the
evidence is strong enough accused must be acquitted
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
The accused is under no obligation to show evidence
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Accused always has a right to a lawyer (PAO)
Counsel de officio
Courts can appoint lawyers to act as counsel of the
accused temporarily to ensure that the accused
always has legal representation
Competence
Passing the bar gives the presumption of
competence. It does not free the lawyer from
making mistakes however, depending on the
mistake, it may be a deciding factor of whether or
not the lawyer is incompetent.
If the mistake is so gross that it puts into question
the competence of a lawyer, then the accused may
be considered as having no counsel
See previous discussion in due process
Speedy
Not about the speed per se – so long as there is no
unnecessary delay. If the prosecution of the accused
becomes vexatious, then this right can be raised (ex.,
repeated resetting).
Speedy Trial Act
180 days from arraignment; trial must be finished.
Adjudication on the Merits
If the dismissal is premised on the violation of the
right to speedy trial, jurisprudence provides that
such dismissal is final and operates as an
adjudication on the merits (aka no case may be
filed again lest double jeopardy attaches)
Provisional Dismissal
The prosecution may revive cases under provisional
dismissal. This needs the express consent of the
accused.
Remulla v Maliksi
The case was delayed for 9 years and the petitioner was
imprisoned for the same. Because of the unreasonable delay
with no justifiable reason, the case was dismissed.

Independence RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

As much as possible, there must not be any conflict
of interest.
Jurisprudence
The lawyer who is under the payroll of the police
cannot be considered as independent.
1. Right of the accused to be present at every stage
of the proceeding
The accused may waive this right BUT this must be
express
2. The accused has the right to cross-examine their
witness

REMEMBER Liong v People

Liong was given enough opportunities to cross-examine
On Counsel
Dela Rama but since he caused multiple delays in the
1 person is to 1 counsel
proceedings due to his frequent changes in counsel, he was
deemed to have waived his right to confront and
Rights of counsel
cross-examine
Accused may find his own counsel, and if he cannot, he
should be assigned one especially in criminal cases

31
TRIALS IN ABSENTIA
After arraignment, if the accused fails to appear without
justifiable reason, then the case will be tried in absentia or
proceed without him. This means the accused has forfeited
his right to be present and confront their witnesses.
COMPULSORY PROCESS
Right to request the court to compel the witness to appear
(ex., subpoena, show cause). The judge is given such powers
to protect the rights of the accused, especially if such
compulsory processes benefit the accused.
SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE
ART III SEC 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
A right of the accused to not be compelled to testify or
speak. (A right not to be compelled to talk). May be invoked
in criminal, civil, and administrative
Testimonial Compulsion Only
In as far as object evidence is obtained, the right against
self-incrimination cannot be raised because this only
protects the accused from testimonial compulsion.
REMEMBER
When can testimonial compilation be raised?
May be raised when you’re being asked a question that may
implicate you (ex. Ikaw ba pumatay?).
HOWEVER, it CANNOT be invoked PREEMPTIVELY
(ex. I refuse to appear because I invoke my right against
self-incrimination)
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks,
Financial Institutions and Currencies
Standard Chartered Bank refused to release documents
asserting this right but SC said they must release it because
no testimony is asked of them – simpy the release of the
document. Further, their refusal may be considered a
preemptive raising of the right against self-incrimination
which is prohibited.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The accused cannot be held liable twice for the same
offense
ROC
If the accused is already convicted, acquitted, or the case
against him dismissed without the express conformity of the
accused – he may not be charged again of the same offense
Prosecution cannot be given numerous opportunities to
condemn the accused
Fr. Bernas
Referred to this right as res judicata in prison grey
When double jeopardy attaches
1. 1st jeopardy must attach
a. The court hearing the 1st case must have
jurisdiction over the case
b. There must be valid information or
indictment
c. There must be arraignment (ex. are you
guilty or not guilty?)
d. There must be a valid plea (ex. Guilty po)
e. 1st case was validly terminated
(dismissed, convicted, acquitted)
2. The 1st jeopardy was terminated
3. The 2nd jeopardy of the same case was filed
Exceptions To The Right Against Double Jeopardy
RULE 117 SEC 7
A. Supervening event
The graver offense developed due to supervening
facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
People v Teehankee
Accused was involved in a heated traffic incident
and ended up shooting 2 people. Case was filed for
the death of 1 and injuries of 2. Prosecution moved
to change the charge from frustrated murder to
murder.
B. Late discovery of facts
The facts constituting the graver charge became
known or were discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or information; or
People v Laranaga
They were charged with kidnapping with homicide
but the SC ruled that they connot be convicted of
homicide because there was no body to prove it. If
the body was found eventually, then they can
charge the accused with the complex crime
C. Plea to lesser offense without consent of
prosecutor and private offended party
32
 The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made
without the consent of the prosecutor and of the
offended party except as provided in section 1 (f) of
Rule 116.
Rule 116 Sec 1(f)
The private offended party shall be required to
appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other
matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of
the offended party to appear despite due notice,
the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged with the conformity
of the trial prosecutor alone.
Plea Bargaining
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act
Punished by law and ordinance
If there is a law and an ordinance punishing the same thing,
you will only be
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER
ART III SEC 22
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Rationale
It prohibits the retroactive application of penal laws
EX POST FACTO LAW
Punishing an act which was not a crime yet when it was
committed or aggravating the effects of such crimes
Retroactive application
This is not allowed unless it is favorable to the
accused and the accused is not a habitual
delinquent
Forms Of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Punishment for the crime is worsened
2. The penalty is increased
3. When rules of evidence are changed so
that it requires less evidence to be
convicted
4. When a law assumes merely a regulation
of civil rights and remedies but the
penalty involved is the deprivation of the
liberty of a person
5. When the law removes a defense the
accused is legally entitled to before
BILLS OF ATTAINDER
The law finds the accused guilty of an offense and punished
him accordingly without trial as it usurps the powers of the
judiciary
Subversion Act
Mere membership of the CPP was punishable. This
is a bill of attainder as the law itself punishes an
individual by mere fact of membership
33
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & POLITICAL PRISONERS facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by
law”
ART III SEC 18

(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his

political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except

as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted.

NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS

ART III SEC 20

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment

of a poll tax.

Lozano v. Martinez
They questioned BP 22, The SC says that the ratio of the
law is to ensure the integrity of the banking system wherein
when a cheque is issued, it will go through.

EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL AND INHUMAN

PUNISHMENTS

ART III SEC 19

(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,

degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or

degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.

RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

A penalty is cruel and unusual if it imposes the feeling of
lingering pain and death.

Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice

Death penalty through lethal injection is not necessarily
cruel nor unusual by definition of what law is cruel and
unusual.

Corpuz v. People
Because of inflation, the fine imposed before when imposed
now, would be cruel and unusual. SC says no because the
length of penalty of imprisonment is dependent upon
Congress and the only remedy is the Congressional action.

Brown v Plata
In the US, because prisons were congested, prisoners were
set free. In our laws, “substandard or inadequate penal

34
 SPECIAL WRITS
WRIT SUMMARY
A special writ that requires a person
who is suspected to be detaining
HABEAS another to reveal the purpose or cause
CORPUS of such detention. Once the person
denies this allegation, the writ must
fail.
This writ protects the life, liberty, and
security of a person against enforced
AMPARO disappearances or extrajudicial killings,
which are presumed to be planned
disappearances by the government
Remedy to protect an individual’s right
to privacy in life, liberty, property, and
security is violated or threatened by an
HABEAS
act or omission by a public official or
DATA
employee; or a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering or
storing of data or information
A unique legal remedy to protect one’s
KALIKASAN constitutional right to a healthy
environment
WRIT OF AMPARO
Secures the loopholes of the writ of habeas corpus
This protects the individual’s life, liberty, and security. So it
mainly revolves around the security of a person.
Writ of Amparo Proceeding
If the respondent denies the fact of detention, it is
incumbent upon the respondent to explain to the Court the
steps they took to determine the location
HABEAS CORPUS AMPARO
The denial of the fact of Once the fact of detention
detention will dismiss the is denied, respondent must
writ explain to the Court the
steps which the
respondent took in
determining the location of
the individual
Denial is nor sufficient
The mere fact of denial is not sufficient – the respondents
must prove that they exerted adequate efforts to determine
the whereabouts of the person supposedly being detained
and that the said person is not being detained somewhere
else. Finding this to be wanting/inadequate, the writ will be
issued, and the respondent must produce the body

REMEMBER
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Government planned the disappearance of the individual
Habeas corpus
This is only issued in the instances of enforced
produce the body
A special writ directed to a person requiring them to reveal disappearances or extrajudicial killings. If it does not fall
the purpose or cause of the detention of another person under this, the writ must be denied.

Caram v Atty. Segui

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
Christina misled Marcelino into believing that she had an
Why is this person detaining another person? abortion when in fact she proceeded to complete the term
of her pregnancy. She intended to have the child adopted
through Sun and Moon Home for Children to avoid placing
Writ of Habeas Corpus Proceeding
her family in a potentially embarrassing situation for having
Determine the validity and legality of the arrest and
a second illegitimate son. Marcelino died of a heart attack
detention of an individual
and during his wake, Christina revealed the existence of her
and the child to his family. The family wanted to support
1987 Constitution
both of them but the DSWD said that the Cert. Declaring
The declaration of Martial Law does not equate to
the Child Legally Available for Adoption was finalized which
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus unless
meant that he was a ward of the state and that Christina no
it need be declared
longer had any parental authority over the baby. Christina
filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo before
Problem with the writ of habeas corpus
seeking to obtain custody of the child from DSWD.
Once the person alleged to be holding another person
This was denied by the SC as the writ of Amparo is only
denies this allegation then the writ will necessarily fail.
applicable in the instances of extralegal killings and
The purpose of the writ is to determine the validity of
enforced disappearances.
detention, but the same cannot be discussed if the fact of
detention is denied.

Presumption of existence of detention

The writ presupposes that the person being held
captive is being held against their will.

35
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Protects one’s right to privacy and one’s information

Rules - File before any court but RTC dapat muna

The writ of habeas data is a remedy to anyone whose right
to privacy in life, liberty,property, and security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee; or a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering or storing of data or information

Examples
1. Blackmail
2. Threat to release certain information
3. Unlawfully gathering one’s data

WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Art II Sec 16
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.

Healthful Ecology
The main concern of this remedy is to protect one’s
constitutional right to a healthy environment.

MMDA - Oil Spill Case

A writ of continuing mandamus was adopted as an incident
of the writ of Kalikasan.

Writ of Continuing Mandamus

Mandates an executive office to do periodic acts (report
every 6 mos.) to ensure the protection of the environment.
This only applies to applications of the writ of Kalikasan or
environmental cases – not in any other proceedings.

36
 CITIZENSHIP
WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS
ART IV SEC 1
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
ART IV SEC 2
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
A citizen does not need to perform any positive acts to
perfect their citizenship
Art IV Sec 1 (3)
To “elect” under this enumeration IS NOT a positive
act contemplated by law. In this instance,
citizenship is already bestowed upon the individual
and such individual need only confirm it
NATURALIZED CITIZEN
The legal act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with
the privileges of a natural-born citizen. A person may be
naturalized either by complying with both the substantive
and procedural requirements of a general naturalization law
or he may be naturalized by a special act of the legislature
MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
Jus Sanguinis
The Philippines follows jus sanguinis or citizenship by blood.
So long as you are born of a Filipino father and/or mother,
then you are Filipino
LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP
ART IV SEC 3
Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the
manner provided by law.
ART IV SEC 4
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain
their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE
ART IV SEC 5
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Dual Citizenship
By application of the law, a person may be a citizen of 2
states. The person in question did NOT choose to have 2
citizenships but it so happens to be an effect of the
application of 2 laws (e.g. one that follows jus sanguinis and
one that follows jus soli)
Dual Allegiance
This refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states;
which is a result of an individual’s own volition. This is
prohibited.
Mercado v Manzano
Dual allegiance does not refer to dual citizenship.
The fact that Manzano filed his certificate of candidacy,
meant that he expressly renounced his American Citizenship
and electing his Filipino citizenship. It is true that Manzano
held onto his passport on April 22, 1997, but the moment
he filed for elections he expressly enounced it as he applied
it on March 21, 1998, thus renouncing his American
citizenship.

Jus Soli
Like in the US, so long as you are born on US soil, you are
American.

37