Exclusionary Rule

Definition
Any evidence obtained in a search or seizure without a warrant or by authority of an invalid warrant
“shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding”
 Who can avail the defense of unlawful search or seizure?
It is purely personal and cannot be available to third parties
In the absence of governmental interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure cannot be invoked against the State. The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against act
of private individuals, but it is directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. ( People vs. Marti)

In Zulueta vs CA, It was ruled that A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to
her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
privileged.

In Ople vs Torres, The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. It requires
that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions.

SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Included in Speech, Expression and Speech are:

 Every form of expression whether written, oral, tape or disc recorded.
 Movies and symbolic speech such as using an armband in protest
 Peaceful picketing
Types of restraint
 Content-based regulation
o Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the expression. Apply the scrutiny test
and the challenge must overcome the clear and present danger rule
 Content-neutral regulation
o Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place and manner of the expression in public
place without restraint in the content of the expression.

Tests for valid government interference to freedom of speech

 Clear and present danger test
 Dangerous tendency test
 Balancing of interest test
o
Facial Challenge Test
An exception to the rule that only persons who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing
to assail the same. This is only applicable to statutes involving free speech impeached on the grounds of
overbreadth or vagueness.
Litigants challenge the statute on grounds that the statute itself may cause others, who are not before
the court, refrain to be constitutionally protected for free speech and expression.
In Imbong vs. Ochoa, While the Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly
penal statues, it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also those
involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this modification is
simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the
Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
State Regulation on Mass media
For Broadcast and Radio Media, it was ruled in Divinagracia vs. CBS Inc., The various functions of
the NTC, as established by E.O. No. 546. One can readily notice that even as the NTC is vested with the power
to issue CPCs to broadcast stations, it is not expressly vested with the power to cancel such CPCs, or
otherwise empowered to prevent broadcast stations with duly issued franchises and CPCs from operating
radio or television stations.

For Print Media, The freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a
representative democracy. The people continues to have the right to be informed on public affairs and
broadcast media continues to have the pervasive influence to the people being the most accessible form of
media. Therefore, broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due
process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. (Eastern Broadcasting vs Dans Jr.)

Private vs Government Speeches

Heckler’s Veto
Government attempts to ban protected speech because it might provoke violent response

Prohibition of the free speech and press clause

 Prior restraint
o Governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication
 Valid prior restraint
o Movies, television and radio broadcast censorship
o Pornography
o False or misleading commercial statements
o Advocacy of imminent lawless action
o Danger to national security

In Near vs Minnesota, The government does not have the right to prohibit negative speech about it
if there is some truth to it. There must be a case-specific analysis to determine whether the allegations have a
basis in truth, although war or other types of national emergency may reduce the protections of the press.
Although any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its
constitutionality, there are exceptions to the rule.

Non-criminal process which requires prior submission of a film to a censor avoids constitutional
infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate dangers of a censorship
system (Freeman vs. Maryland)

Since the law granted the press a privilege, the law could take back the privilege without offense to
the Constitution. (Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance)

Unarguably, a citizen who accepts public employment "must accept certain limitations on his
or her freedom." But there are some rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty that they cannot
be bargained away in a contract for public employment. It is the Court's responsibility to ensure that
citizens are not deprived of these fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government.
(Davao Water District vs. Aranjuez)