Page 1 of 37


SEC 4. FREEDOM OF SEPAP (Speech, Expression, Press, Assembly and Petition) “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” OTHER RELATED SPECIAL LAW:  RA 53, as amended by RA 1477 An act to exempt the publisher editor, columnist or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news and information obtained in confidence.  PARTICLE of SOVEREIGNTY: Every citizen has a right to offer his views and suggestions in the discussion of the common problems of the community.  SCOPE: The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable to the majority.  MODES OF EXPRESSION: Freedom of expression is usually exercised through: a. LANGUAGE b. ORAL c. WRITTEN d. SYMBOLISMS  ELEMENTS of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: 1. Freedom from PREVIOUS restraint or censorship. 2. Freedom from SUBSEQUENT punishment. VALID PRIOR RESTRAINT (Exceptions): a. Movie censorship b. Movie regulation c. Injunction against xxx d. Decency that may be enforced to acts which are obscene e. Seditious speeches f. Enforcement of military xxx A. PRIOR RESTRAINT  Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the prior approval of the Government.  Only those ideas acceptable to it are allowed to be disseminated; all others are restricted or suppressed.  Government carries the burden.  CASES (Prior Restraint):  There should be a preservation of status quo (Freedman vs. Maryland, 380 US 51, 1965).  Intrusion of a person is permissible IF such person is a public figure (Aver Productions vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 865, 1988).  Radio and Television Broadcasting has LESSER PROTECTION scope because their information is widely accessible even to the non-educated ones unlike in Newspapers and Publications since only few people can take hold or read such papers (Far Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans, Jr., 137 SCRA 628, 1985).  Print Media enjoy the widest protection of Freedom BUT Broadcast Media enjoy least protection since information in Broadcast

Media can always be made available to children.  Hypothetical fear is not enough (Alexander vs. US, 113 S. Ct. 2766, 1993).

B. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT 3 Major Criteria. Liability of an individual for ideas expressed by him: 1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – the evil consequence must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence must be extremely high before utterance can be punished. Causal connection between the utterance and the danger or substantive evil arising It must be imminent or immediate inevitable. Dili na gyud mapugngan. It is NOT PROBABLE (Basin ingon-ani ang mahitabo no?)  Legal Forms of Suppression TEST: a. The fear that serious evil will result when the right is exercised. b. Brings about the evil or danger. c. To believe that the danger apprehended is imminent and serious. d. There must be a probability or serious injury to the State. e. There has to be a causal connection between the utterance and the danger. 2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – natural tendency to bring about evil which the Congress has the right to prevent.  NO longer applicable/controlling. 3. Balancing-of-Interest Test – in lieu of the Clear and Present Danger rule  There is the presence of a LEGITIMATE state interest which is weighed against the freedom of expression of a person or group of persons. Ex. Waging WAR against the Gov’t. Sige mag-rebelde na ta. Sulong mga kapatid!  The expression made is NOT ABSOLUTE.  Duty of the Court: DETERMINE CONFLICTING IDEAS – particular conduct is regulated in interest of public order BUT results in abridgement of speech. CASES (Subsequent Punishment): GONZALES vs COMELEC (27 SCRA 835, 1969)  The clear and present danger rule was being applied.  The law that was being discussed which involve the prevention of the debasement of electoral process.  SC said that there was a justification of the prevention. PEOPLE vs PEREZ (45 PHIL 599, 1923)  Discusses about the Dangerous Tendency Rule.  I do not discuss this one to you anymore because this is not anymore controlling. DENNIS vs US (341 US 494, 1951)
Page 1 of 37

Page 2 of 37


 Illustrates the Clear and Present Danger Rule.  SC said the question in every case is whether the words are used in such a circumstance in such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about substantive evil, Congress has the right to prevent.  It’s all about the proximity and the degree of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. IN RE EMIL JURADO (Adm. Matter 93-2-037, 243 SCRA 299, 1995)  SC said that the Constitutional right of Freedom of Expression MAY NOT BE AVAILED to broadcast TRUTH and HALF-TRUTHS. Kana bitaw’ng mura’g tinood, mura’g dili tinood.

 SC said that it does not endanger any substantial Government interest. There’s no evil that Congress may protect or prevent.  But, before Adiong vs COMELEC, it was prohibited.  Except for Government Employees because they are prohibited by the CSC Law re: Electioneering. Government Employee must be apolitical.

COMMERCIAL SPEECH  A communication which no more than proposes a commercial transaction.  PROTECTION: Must not be false or misleading. RUBIN vs COORS BREWING CO. (131 L.Ed.2d 532, 1995)  TEST on the determination that a commercial speech maybe regulated by the Government: 1. If Government has substantial interest to protect. 2. Regulation must directly advance that interest that the Government wants to protect. 3. The END GOAL is just protection of the interest. It can NEVER be EXTENDED. CITY OF LADUE vs GILLEO (129 L.Ed.2d 36, 1994)  Gilleo displayed an Anti-War Sign in her house.  City Ordinance: signs are prohibited to be placed in house windows.  Held: City Ordinance violated Gilleo’s right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment.  Although acknowledging Ladue’s Police Power to minimize visual clutter associated with signs, the Court ruled that the law “almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.”  The Court held a “SPECIAL RESPECT” for an individual’s right to convey messages from her home.  Ex. SIGN: “No to Contraception.” Meaning you are a LIFE ADVOCATE. Nobody can ever question what is your stand for a particular issue nga pwede nimo ibutang sa imong balay.

CASES (Political Advertisement): SANIDAD vs COMELEC (181 SCRA 529, 1990)  SC said that enactment that serves as a Prior Restraint to the exercise of a Constitutional right of Freedom of Expression must be struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs COMELEC (207 SCRA 1, 1992)  Suppression of Airtime in Broadcast Media and print spaces in print Media.  SC said that it is VALID because the objective of the law is to equalize the situation between the rich and poor candidates by preventing the rich candidate from enjoying an undue advantage by huge campaign funds.  Because dili nila gusto mahitabo nga kato lang mga dato nga mga kandidato mao ra’y sige-sige ug pa advertise kay mas daghan man sila ug campaign funds. But, this time… EMILIO OSMEÑA vs COMELEC (288 SCRA 447, 1998)  Talks about the petition to be examined the NPC VS COMELEC Case re: Suppression of Air time and Print Spaces for running candidates during the Election.  SC ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it infringes the freedom of speech of the persons being suppressed. It is an oppression of the Freedom of Expression. TELECOM & BROADCAST ATTORNEYS vs COMELEC (289 SCRA 337, 1998)  The law prohibits Mass Media from selling or donating free space or airtime to Broadcast or Print Medias to candidates. COMELEC will provide for them.  SC said TELECOM has no standing to sue. ADIONG vs COMELEC (207 SCRA 712, 1992)  Law prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  It infringes the right of free speech.

LIBEL  Is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.  BASIS: As long as it injures the one being defamed.  Distinguished in 2: 1. Written - LIBEL 2. Oral - SLANDER  In the RPC, it is only referred to and defined as Libel.  Legal Exception of Subsequent Punishment: 1. Libel – defamatory statements 2. Obscenity – obscene materials 3. Contempt – Court contempt
Page 2 of 37

Page 3 of 37


 Under the RPC (Art 353), every DEFAMATORY statement is presumed to be MALICIOUS EVEN if it’s TRUE, IF there’s NO GOOD INTENTION. EXCEPT for the following: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty. It is not libelous. 2. A Fair and True report, made in good faith, (Ex. DJ of Charm criticize public officials) without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.  ORDINARY CITIZENS should be allowed MORE PROTECTION from libelous statements than individuals in the PUBLIC eye.  SC said that if it is made in GOOD FAITH, exception to Subsequent Punishment if the report is VALID and TRUE.  GOOD FAITH is the Qualified Privilege.  IF it is against PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS: it is always presumed that it has Malice.  IF it is against PUBLIC OFFICIALS: o VALID if pertaining to the public responsibilities Ex. Construction of the sports complex. Lesser and protection. o SUBJECT to CRITICISMS - IF pertains to official acts of the Public Official. o If it talks about the using of public funds by virtue of official acts – always subject to Criticism. o If it talks about physical, mental and moral fitness, the statement is protected if it tells only the circumstance Ex. Mayor Peñas is hospitalized due to some illness --- DO NOT ADD other circumstances other than the true one. Ex. Na-hospital kay na HIV kay nanguan ug burikat. o IF it talks about the PRIVATE LIFE of Public Official --- almost the same to private individual Ex. Congressman nag date-date. Unsa maning bayhana ni, moral ba ni o immoral ba ni? HOWEVER if it is susceptible to PUBLIC CONCERN – it may have a NARROWER Protection. Ex. Congressman nag date-date. Unya public funds ang gigamit sa pag date-date. Susceptible to public concern.  The evil sought be punished by the provisions on Libel is not a disturbance to public order caused by the defamatory statement or language but there is a tendency INJURE the person regardless of the effect upon the public.  Public Clamor does not matter, what is important is that there’s a TENDENCY OF INJURY to the Person being DEFAMED.

 If the subject is the person’s moral, mental and physical aspects: they may be subject to comments and criticisms BUT such is only privilege IF it tells about the circumstance. It takes about FAIRPLAY. Mao ra’y ibroadcast. The statement must be true. PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION  Fair and due report.  It involves performance of duty.  It is made against public life of a public officer or public figure and NOT a Private Life.  If there is actual MALICE, there is LIBEL – if he knew that such is FALSE. So, libelous.  A Public figure may not recover from for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice.” CASES (Libel): POLICARPIO vs MANILA TIMES (L-16027, May 30, 1962)  SC said that exception to the presumption that every defamatory imitation is malicious is a private communication – made by any person to another in the performance of an official proceeding which is not confidential in nature.  But to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must not only TRUE but must be FAIR and made in GOOD FAITH without comments or remarks. LOPEZ vs CA (34 SCRA 116, 1970)  There must be an ACTUAL MALICE but if wala so NO VIOLATION!  But if you know that it is FALSE, then there’s ACTUAL MALICE because of such knowledge.  There was a reckless disregard if it was published whether you are NOT SURE if such is false or not. Facts should be verified. NEW YORK TIMES vs SULLIVAN (376 US 254, 1964)  The statement must have an actual malice.  You have to prove the statement is made with malice.  Knowledge that it is false – VIOLATED!  Disregard recklessly whether it is false or not – VIOLATED!  A public official for that matter cannot ask for a protection whatever damages due to him. OBSCENITY  Test of Obscenity: 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law. 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Page 3 of 37

WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS AS TO CRITICISMS?  Public acts: it may be subject to criticism  IF made in Good Faith: they are qualified privilege.

IX (C) Sec.  Even if the State recognizes the influence of a particular sect or religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. benefit or support of any sect. benefit or support of any priest. or for the use. No Religious Test 1. sect or any groups of religion  In short.Exceptions: If such priests. preacher. religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong. It must have principal effects does not advance nor inhibit religion (Means it’s not the incidental effect. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. It’s just a basic delivery of services of the Government and not merely for a religious purpose.It must not pass any law which aid any religion or which prefers one religion over the other . Ex. without additional cost to the Government. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political. OTHER RELATED PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH SUPPORTS AND GIVES A STRONG FOUNDATION ON THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:  Art. and exclusively used for religious. preacher. churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto.It should not favor any church or any sect . it calls for the separation of Church and State. this does not mean a wall of neutrality. VI Sec. without discrimination or preference. Non-Establishment of Religion 2. VI Sec. But it advances the delivery of basic services for the people but not for the worshippers or the Roman Catholics going to the chapel of the Benedictine Nuns) C. Government ought to give it back to the people. the State as a separate entity from that of the Church or any other religious denominations or sects. It has to be equal nontreatment. 2 (5)  Prohibition of religious denominations and sects from being registered as political parties or organizations. The Brothers of the Polycarp Foundation. sectarian institution or system of religion. Free Exercise of Religion 3.” 3 CLAUSES: 1. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 5.It must not openly or secretly participate in any affairs that involves any religion. XIV Sec. non-profit cemeteries. FREEDOM OF RELIGION “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. . Gov.  Art.The State cannot setup its own church . shall forever be allowed. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. EXCEPTIONS OF NEC:  Art.  The determination whether the State is involved with the establishment of religion is only thru a judicial determination. 28 (3)  Charitable institutions. and all lands. minister or other religious teacher or dignitary as such… . II Sec. 6  The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. Statute must have a “secular legislative intent” (It is just an incidental effect) Ex. and improvements. 3 (3)  At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians. applied. buildings. or dignitary is assigned to: o AFP o Penal Institution o Government Orphanage o Leprosarium  Art. There’s no excessive entanglement between the Government and the Church (Wala’y connection at all which means it is merely incidental hence a valid ground to extend support) Page 4 of 37 .  It talks about equal non-treatment at all. minister. paid or used. charitable. for the use. PURPOSE OF THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT:  Protect voluntarism and the installation of a political process from inter-faith discussion  It gives streamlines. The Government can extend support. actually. mosques. financial assistance or donations are given to the indigent constituents of the Province. denomination. directly. church. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. 29 (2) .No public money or property shall ever be appropriated. Cagas approved road concreting project at the Benedictine Nuns. B.Page 4 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (NEC):  The State must forever be neutral in the affairs of Faith/Religion. directly or indirectly. KINDS OF SUPPORT THAT ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE NEC:  Sponsorship of particular activities  Financial support  Active involvement of the Sovereign or State in any religious activity 3 REQUISITES AS EXCEPTIONS THAT THE STATE MAY VALIDLY EXTEND SUPPORT TO SECTS OR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS: A. It is not connected to any religion. It’s just incidental that such road the constituents use is the road going to the Benedictine Nuns.  Art. donations or financial assistance to such Foundation because the mere objective of the Foundation is not for a religious purpose but such support.

DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NEC. books must be dictionaries. SCHOOL DISTRICT vs SCHEMPP (374 SCRA 203.  Contention: Ahh nay favor2 sa INC over other religions. 1981)  Purchase of a RELIGIOUS IMAGE by the Public Officials  SC said IT DOES NOT VIOLATE since the money was used in the purchase is not a tax money but it involves a private funds. It advances or favors a particular religion which believes that Christ is born.  Contention: Ahh ang maka benefit ana kay ang mga nanimba. So. GARCES vs EXTENZO (104 SCRA 510.  The practical reality that the religious aspect is merely incidental or secondary in nature. In effect or in exchange there has to be money nga mosulod sa Government. it has a secular purpose: advertisement of the Philippines throughout the world. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY vs ACLU (57 LW 5045. 1968)  Law which requires the petitioner to lend books free of charge to all students from Grade 7 to 12 including private schools students. Meaning to say.  SC said it is ENTIRELY FOR A SECULAR PURPOSE: To provide the waiting shed to provide a shade for sunny or rainy weather. even if it is already donated but the original ownership still remains with the Government and is not transferred to the pupils and students. It may be a symbol of an art. COR JESU LAW STUDENT (Mura’g na connect ka or na-intertwined ka or tali ka o na-priso ka o na-entangle ka between the Government and the religion) (Ex.  It does not favor or interfere with any religious matter because it is has a mere secular purpose. thesaurus. 1971)  A statute which provides for financial assistance or salaries of teachers at Church-related Education Institution – VIOLATED!  3 Requisites were laid down: o Statute must have a SECULAR PURPOSE.  HELD: Does NOT VIOLATE since the statute merely made available to all children the benefit of a general program to lend school books free of charge. Gi-establish nila ang relihiyon ni Aglipay kay giapil nila sa stamps.Page 5 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. Because there are religions which do not believe that Christ is born in a manger. etc but not religious books. Meaning SECULAR – not connected to any religion. The concreting of road is what the Government intended which is for the basic delivery of services for the people) When can we say that there is no excessive entanglement between religion and the Government? It can be determined through:  Character and purpose of the Institution benefited  Nature of aid for which the State provides  Resulting relationship between the Government and the religious authority CASES (Non-Establishment Clause): AGLIPAY vs RUIZ (64 PHIL 201. Page 5 of 37 .  What is being guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty not mere religious toleration.  Only secular books and not religious books are lent to the children.  Further. encyclopedias. o It must have principal effects which neither advances nor inhibit religion.  SC said that the purpose in setting up the marker is to recognize the distinctive contributions of the late Felix Manalo in the Culture of the Philippines rather to commemorate his founding and leadership to the INC. Religious freedom is not a prohibition of a profound reverence to a religion.  Waiting shed construction: There’s a Resolution donating such waiting beside the church.  HELD: It is a religious exercise or constituted a religious observance which violates the NEC.  SC said NO IT DOES NOT VIOLATE. LEMON vs KURTZMAN (403 us 672. 1989)  Public display outside the City County Bldg of (a) Nativity and (b) Menorah  (a) Nativity – UNCONSTITUTIONAL since it is capable of communicating a religious message the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.  (b) Menorah (Candle décor) – CONSTITUTIONAL since the message is not exclusively religious. the books are furnished at the request of the pupils and students and the ownership of such books remains with the State. It promotes the Roman Catholic at the expense of public funds.  Di ba kng nay donation. o It must not foster excessive Government entanglement with religion. It is only incidental that there’s a religious sect benefitted out of the distribution of the special postage stamps. MOÑOSCA vs CA (252 SCRA 412)  Talks about a marker being setup for the late Felix Manalo of the INC. tourism purposes and to attract tourists to the country. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 1963)  Pennsylvania Statute which requires at least 10 VERSES from the Bible be read daily.  The ceremony must BOARD OF EDUCATION vs ALLEN (392 US 236. maka MR mana. 1937)  Stamps with church of Aglipay image  Talks about those who are fond of collecting stamps  RA 4052 which gives the Director of Post a discretionary power to determine when the issuance of the special postage stamps would be advantageous to the Government. So.  The benefit goes straight to the parents and their children but not to parochial schools. The only purpose in issuing the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and to attract more tourists to the country.

 Hence.  So.  Mao nay hinungdan nga away between sa Muslim and Christians.  Gives birth to two (2) Concepts: 1. 1957) Page 6 of 37 . Allah. CASES (Free Exercise Clause): US vs BALLARD (322 US 78.  The view of the flag is not a religious but a symbol of our patriotism as Filipino citizens. then the State may use its POLICE POWER to curtail or to stop us against inimical actions against the society. Yahweh. it is not connected to any religion at all. They cannot insinuate us to which God to believe in whether Jehovah. But.Page 6 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 2. It is not the State who determines whether this particular Priest is suited to be placed in a public office. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.  Public Office should be left to the good sense of the people.  VIOLATES the right to disseminate religious information or articles TOLENTINO vs SEC OF FINANCE. PAMIL vs TELERON (86 SCRA 413. Freedom to act to one’s belief  The determination of these aspects is beyond the jurisdiction or competence of any Government authority. It’s just an expression coming from the majoritarian view. for the Jehovah’s.  2 Fundamental Rights of the Priests: Civil and Political Rights. SC said that members of the Jehovah’s should be EXEMPTED from the FLAG CEREMONY.  If one could be sent in jail because the jury in a hostile environment found that such faith is false.  Laliman ka ma-expel sila kay wala lang nisaludo sa falg. NO GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE LOGICAL. he sent mails soliciting contributions for his healing services. 1978)  Priest running for a public office. then there will be nothing left to religious freedom. it is the EXPRESSION OF THE MAJORITY.  The Government cannot stop us from believing something specifically to the Roman Catholics that we believe in One God. So.  SC said that saluting the flag is sometimes offensive to others to be worth giving up the religion which is a Constitutional right. All that mattered was that the person accept them in good faith. Freedom to act on one’s belief = NOT ABSOLUTE! Hence. he was charged with FRAUD. 1944)  Ballard believed that he has the power to heal incurable diseases. The Government cannot say that No! You have to believe that there are 3 Gods. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs CITY OF MANILA (101 PHIL 386. VALID OR ACCURATE.  In the 1995 Case. it may be regulated by the Sate. there was a RULING that they ought to follow the School’s rules and regulations.  The jury based its decision on the sincerity of Ballard’s beliefs.  Government claimed that Ballard’s claims were false and he used them to defraud others. THEN IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED.  Religious Corp sells Bibles and other religious articles which required to obtain a License and pay corresponding fees in the sale of merchandise. SC said that such regulation offend the Constitutional requirement of Governmnetal neutrality if it unduly burdens the Free Exercise of Religion.  SC said that Vat is not a license TAX as it is generally applicable to all whether you are a religious sect. Freedom to believe and Freedom not to believe 2. business sector or a private individual. 1993)  FLAG SALUTE  Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed that they should not salute the FLAG because it was an IMAGE to which the Bible prohibited them from rendering obeisance.  CONSTITUTIONAL because of the NORELIGIOUS TEST under the Constitution.  Two Aspects: 1. that Saturday is the Sabbath Day or is it Sunday the Sabbath Day.  SC said that the view that the flag is a neutral. It is offensive sa ila nga mosaludo sa flag. two rights ang mawala sa ila which are the Right to Education and the Freedom of Religion. The decision prevented juries from being asked to consider whether a person’s religious beliefs were ever true.  Whether or not the Court or the Government have the right to evaluate religious beliefs of a citizen or group. SUPRA  VAT is imposed on the printing of religious articles/materials. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.  HOWEVER. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  Similar to Aglipay vs Ruiz Case (FAVORITE BAR QUESTIONS) 2.Something that the State may not interfere.  In the 1993 Case. Cristo. Freedom to believe and not to believe = ABSOLUTE! . a secular symbol. Hence. if our BELIEFS are being translated into CONCRETE ACTIONS. Dili mi mosaludo sa FLAG ka yang GINOO lang gyud among saludohan. it is offensive for them because they believed that they should not be forced to salute the flag. EBRALINAG vs SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS (219 SCRA 256.

Priests. otherwise.  Disqualifying a Clergyman from participating any of the Constitutional process or running for a political position.  Because a statute prevented Ministers.  This is deprivation of a Civil and Political Rights of a person. 1994)  Film Exhibit.  Not done during school hours. Page 7 of 37 .  Court said NO VIOLATION because the film exhibit is not done during schools hours and it is not open to students alone but open to the public in general. then you are PUNISHING a particular RELIGION or Religious Profession. etc to take part – VIOLATED the First Amendment Rights because it prevents petitioner to exercise his TWO (2) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: CIVIL AND POLITICAL.  Open to the public. COR JESU LAW STUDENT McDANIEL vs PATTY (435 SCRA 618. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. wala na’y mag-pari o mag-madre. 1978) Ordained Minister barred from serving the Constitutional Convention. 91-2024.Page 7 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. LAMB’S CHAPEL vs SCHOOL DISTRICT (No.  Whatever benefit that any religion may have is only INCIDENTAL or SECONDARY.

Basis. public safety and public health.  Subject to regulation under Police Power but with Due Process. the Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion since the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. this is not a Fundamental Law but of International Law. 1989)  The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Pres Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime.The Authority there is the Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention .  It is the Supreme Court’s well-considered view that the right to return may be considered not as a Constitutional guarantee or a Fundamental Law but as a generally accepted Principle of International Law which is part of the Law of the Land. SC further said that the right to return to one’s country is distinct from the right to travel and it enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 6. public safety.”  WHAT ARE THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED UNDER SEC 6?  Freedom to choose one’s place of abode  Freedom to change one’s place of abode  Freedom to travel within the Country and outside the Country  Not synonymous with the Right to return into one’s Country? (Marcos vs Manglapus) – NO! .Page 8 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  However. .  The Court has the sole determination of the right to travel if due to national security. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. . MARCOS vs MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668. as may be provided by law. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.The right to return to one’s country is not covered by specific right to travel and right to liberty of abode. Page 8 of 37 . or public health.SC said the Covenant of Human Rights have separate guarantees of the right to travel and liberty of abode.  Furthermore.

mga treasurer. these rights are subject to LIMITATIONS.  SC said the Constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is NOT ABSOLUTE. Page 9 of 37 .  Any Government employees must be given an access to these public records because it is a matter of public interest and concern. shall be afforded the citizen. AQUINO-SARMIENTO vs MORATO (203 SCRA 515. and papers pertaining to official acts. mga Governor. 1989)  Mandatory contribution to the GSIS of Government Employees. . HOW ARE THESE RIGHTS REGULATED? 1. access to CSC Eligibility does not involve National Security. By law. VALMONTE vs BELMONTE (170 SCRA 256. Being of public concern 2. GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost prudence and respect among its members. transactions.  So. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. CASES (Right to Information): LEGASPI vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (150 SCRA 530. The Officers with control or custody of official documents may regulate or may exercise discretion as to the manner of inspection or of examination or of the copying of the documents whether or not such information being sought is of public concern.  This is the right to privacy belonging to a particular Board acting on their own individual capacity. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER SEC 7?  Right to Information and matters of public concern  Right to access of official records and documents (Corollary Right) . subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.  GSIS being a trustee of the contributions of Government Employees. interests) but subject only to certain regulations as to the time and manner of inspection or examination (Dili man ka pwede moingon I have the right to access dapat karong als 12:00 sa gabii na nako kinahanglanon). or decisions.  GSIS is deemed to be the Administrator of Insurance Programs for the benefit of these employees. Access to official records.  There can be no invasion of privacy here since what is sought is a product of action undertaken under the course of performing an official function. it is a depository so the funds are now imbued with PUBLIC INTEREST and PUBLIC CHARACTER. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 7. It must be determined whether or not the INFORMATION SOUGHT is a PUBLIC CONCERN. there should be exemptions to information for public scrutiny as to documents affecting public interest or national security. You can never be asked as to how you vote in your own capacity but you can be questioned as to how have you voted as a Collegial body for after all it is a product of action undertaken in the course of performing a valid official function.  SC said No! Because it is a matter imbued with public interest and concern.These are the rights available to CITIZENS ONLY but only to Sec 7 since other Sections of the Bill of Rights are guaranteed to citizens and aliens. 1987)  CSC Eligibility of a Sanitarian employee was being asked by the Petitioner. Angelo Reyes died because of Sec 7.Page 9 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. RIGHT TO INFORMATION “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.  GSIS cannot say NO! Dili ko pwede magpakita sa imo ani kay laborer lang ka.  Transform private funds into public funds and has a Public Character.”  Remembers. petition is GRANTED. The Constitution guarantees such right but is subject to limitations as may be provided for by law. ang dapat nay access ani ka yang mga Head of Office.  Sec 7 is the authority: The cause of the cause of the evil caused when Angelo Reyes committed suicide because of this Sec. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. and to documents.  Petitioners are entitled to access documents (loans.  The law may exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny such as those affecting National Security. 1991)  Voting slips of MTRCB (Kani angay ba ni ipasalida o dili o Rated X ba ni o Rated PG)  SC said that the right to privacy belongs to the individual acting in their own individual private capacity and not to a Governmental agency or Officers or Staff acting in the discharge of their public duties.  SC said.However.  The right to access of official records must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought: 1. Not being exempted by law  If the information sought is of public concern and that it is not among the exemptions of the law. so you as a Citizen may gain access to those information. 3. considering the nature of the funds. janitor lang ka sa Kapitolyo. 2.  Since. Executives.  Example: Members of the Board ta.

They CAN DEMONSTRATE but they CANNOT engage in STRIKE.  Hence. 1989)  TUCP. . this does not include the freedom to STRIKE. THE RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATION . associations. The freedom of association is an aspect of the freedom of expression and freedom to believe in objectives. including the right to strike in accordance with law…” (Labor Code)  ART IX (B) SEC 2 (5) “The right to selforganization shall not be denied to government employees. they are allowed to strike EXCEPT if there is an express prohibition in their charter that they are allowed to strike. mission or vision of a particular association. not allowed to strike. July 8. However. under the Labor Code. collective bargaining and negotiations. this right is applicable to all people.Page 10 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. while the Constitution and the Labor Code are silent as to whether Government employees may strike. mostly are under the SEC. .  GOCC incorporated under the Corp Code: under the Labor Code.It does not talk about the right to strike but only the right to self-organization among government employees. do they have the right to strike?  SC said that it is clear that teachers DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO STRIKE  However. they have the right to form associations. 1991)  Mass action of teachers. This happens to the GOCC which do not have original charters. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 8. If they have their own original charter.  In Labor Law.  What about teachers.  Contention: Not allowed to strike because they are Government employees. . RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS “The right of the people. bargain collectively and may strike. MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOC vs SEC OF EDUCATION (GR-95445. in government employees. So.  SC said SSS employees are part of the CSC and are covered under CSC memorandum prohibiting their strike.  They can express their grievances Provide outside of school hours but they do not have the right to STRIKE. SSS employees are NOT ALLOWED TO STRIKE. civil servants are restricted to the right to strike and to collective bargaining. Unions. to form unions. Aug 6.However. This right is subdued to the freedom of expression. a labor organization under National Housing Corp (NHC). they are prohibited from striking. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. as to the nature of the SSS employees.  However. . the right to join associations or organizations also accompanies the right not to join such associations or organizations. including those employed in the public and private sectors.  The workers and employees of the NHC have the right to form Unions or Employees Organizations.  Basis of the prohibition from striking: Express provision of the Memorandum Circular 6-1987 of the CSC and as implied under EO 180.Note that the right to form association also includes the right to UNIONIZE.  Certification Election means kung kinsa tong Union mo-represent sa usa ka Kompanya.  They can never delay the delivery of public service – the right to education especially they are catering the public.”  It is therefore an aspect of the general right to liberty form associations.  It also attaches the corollary right NOT TO JOIN ASSOCIATIONS – you can never be forced or compelled to join. So.  Could you imagine an employee is being dismissed just because of not joining?  The right being guaranteed under Sec 8 is the right to join or to form associations.  Meaning. 1989)  SSS Employees went on strike.Employees in the GOCC under SEC may unionize. SUPRA Page 10 of 37 .  GOCC with original Charter: Under the CSC Law.” . or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. a GOCC. they are incorporated under the Corporation Code. There are strikes that are not in accordance with law.  SC said.  NHC is w/out original charter. they are NOT ALLOWED TO STRIKE.  General Rule: They are allowed to form association.  The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and guaranteed to employees in both the government and private sectors. organizations.Belongs to the people whether employed or not employed and whether employed in the government sector or in a private sector. JACINTO vs CA. filed a petition for certification election. you are allowed to negotiate with the Management.  SSS was formed WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER – so they are governed under the CSC and not under the Labor Code. SSS EMPLOYEES vs CA (GR-85279. OTHER RELATED PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION:  ART XIII SEC 3 (2) “The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization.Meaning. and peaceful concerted activities. So. all other civil servants may not unionize meaning to say they are not allowed to bargain collectively and they are not allowed to strike. There are employees who are allowed to strike but there are also employees who not allowed. CASES (Right to Form Associations) TUCP vs NHC (173 SCRA 33.  If there is a Union. has the right to strike.

The taking must be for PUBLIC USE. ELEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE “TAKING” 1. Must be under a want or warrant of color (Naa na gyuy tumong ug tinguha mahitungod sa usa ka property kung para unsaon sa Gobyerno).  This power maybe delegated also to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS pursuant to the law passed by the Legislature which is the Local Government Code of 1991. WHAT IS THIS POWER OF EMINENT D?  One of the inherent powers of the State. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  Illegal strike because it resulted in non-holding of classes. Choses of Action – a personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit at law.Before.  So. and the owner will not be entitled to payment for the loss he has sustained even if he has been completely deprived of his property.  This is also called as the EXPROPRIATION POWER.” WHAT DIFFERS POLICE POWER FROM EMINENT DOMAIN? . 3. you can never say no as long as your property is needed for public use.It involves anything within the COMMERCE OF MEN hence it includes not limited only to real properties but also persona. 3. Ex.  Ultimate right of the State to appropriate not only public but also private properties of all citizens FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. .”  The most favorite BAR topic in the BAR exams. HISTORY OF EMINENT DOMAIN (REGALIAN DOCTRINE) . WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN? 1. The property must be devoted for a PUBLIC USE. A building on the verge of collapse may be ordered demolished in the interest of public safety. demand or recover a debt. .  The Executive is vested with the power to initiate proceedings but such power is dormant until the Legislature sets into MOTION. Destruction of a particular property by reason of necessity) .It includes: o Franchises o Churches and other religious properties notwithstanding the separation of Church and the State o Trade Secret o Patents and trademarks o Books Exceptions: a.lodged in the Legislature. The expropriator must ENTER the property. WHAT ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT MAYBE TAKEN? . . Gikuha lagi sa Government pero naa lang gihapon ka mura gihapon ka’g tag-iya.Eminent Domain o The property is not regulated but the property is TAKEN o There is just compensation. .Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation Provided it is done directly by the National Legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate.  It is the so-called HIGHEST FORM OF OWNERSHIP. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.Anyone who will claim private ownership must first show evidence to the State or to the King that the State or the King has passed ownership or granted ownership to you and that would be the time such property belongs to you. b. The entry must not be for a momentary period only or a transitory period.  Ex.Page 11 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. ? How about kung na-lessen lang ang deprivation sa owner – That’s under the case of US vs Causby. what has passed or granted by the State to an individual may also be taken back by the State. ikaw gihapo’y mag buot). EMINENT DOMAIN “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. 4. Taking – imports a physical dispossession of the owner and is thus deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of his property.It differs from property TAKEN UNDER THE POLICE POWER which is sought to be destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose. . The public use must always amount to a DEPRIVATION of the benefits of the owner (Ex. everything within the State belongs to the King. Money – the expropriation of money would be a futile act because of the requirement for the payment of just compensation usually also in money. CASES (Eminent Domain): US vs CAUSBY (328 US 256. 5. There must be a TAKING OF Private PROPERTY. SEC 9. Compensable taking o You can never destruct a property but just TAKE AWAY the property A. Payment of JUST COMPENSATION.So. There’s no other way to construct the Provincial Capitol except in this property. Page 11 of 37 . 2. 2. a right to receive. 1946)  Chickens commit suicide every time a jet passes by over Causby’s property. tangible and intangible properties. demand or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of duty.  This power is exercised by the Congress .POLICE POWER o The property is regulated o It has no just compensation o Very broad and plenary and is supreme that it can go beyond regulation (Ex.

 There must be a trial to determine proof of valuation of properties. 1983)  There was an Ordinance gipasa sa City Government asking owners of private cemeteries for a 6% cemetery space allotted to paupers and indigents. Gusto nila ipa wala or ipa-bungkag. transfer utilities of PLDT to public ownership UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.  The use of the Government of the property DOES NOT AMOUNT the DEPRIVATION of the owner of the land of the benefits of the property. DE CASTELLVI (58 SCRA 336.  There was no intention to condemn the property.  This amounts to taking without just compensation instead of building a public cemetery by providing a city-owned land. Remember that franchise is a property right. REPUBLIC vs VDA. She still receives the benefits or fruits in the form of payment of RENT. GARCIA vs CA (102 SCRA 597. Feb 25. SUPRA  A certain BUILDING which DESTROYS the VIEW of the PUBLIC PLAZA.  SC said the flight of airplanes which is over the surface but do not touches on the land have much appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Dili pwede mag thank you na lang ang BOT in their connection and usage of PLDT’s trunk lines. MERALCO vs PINEDA (206 SCRA 196. Page 12 of 37 .  Government must suppose to pay even without actual invasion of the land.  The contract is one of a LEASE which is renewable every year. 1981)  This talk about NPC Steel Towers constructed on a certain land.  The POWER TO REGULATE DOES NOT INCLUDE the POWER TO CONFISCATE unless there is a NECESSITY TO DESTROY IT. PEOPLE vs FAJARDO. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 1992)  SC said the act of the Judge in increasing the amount of the provisional value for the purpose of issuing a Writ of Possession is a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  SC said that even if air space is a public highway but land owner must have full control of the immediate reaches of his property including its enveloping atmosphere in order to have a full enjoyment of said property.  BOT filed petition asking the Court to compel PLDT to execute a contract with BOT for the use of its facilities throughout the country.  SC said the Ordinance operates to permanently DEPRIVE THE OWNER of the use of the property without just compensation. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  Emphasis of this case is all about ENJOYMENT but not the death of the chickens when they bang themselves on the wall or cage while an airplane flies over the area.  SC said there’s was NO TAKING because the intention is for the landowner to provide a RIGHT OF WAY or EASEMENT. REPUBLIC vs PLDT (26 SCRA 620.  BOT set up its own government telephone system renting trunk lines of the PLDT.  The judge’s act of determining and ordering the payment of just compensation without the assistance of a Board of Commissioners is a flagrant violation of MERALCO’s constitutional right to due process and is a gross violation of the mandated rule established by the Revised Rules of Court.  There is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in the general interest PROVIDED JUST COMPENSATION IS PAID. there’s NO TAKING because of one of the elements: The ENTRY must NOT ONLY FOR A MOMENTARY or TRANSITORY PERIOD. Bureau of Telecommunications. 1992)  Talks about the Malaya Power Plant. in the interest of national welfare. it passes the burden to private-owned cemeteries. There is no relation or connection between the setting aside of 6% of the total area of a private cemetery and the general welfare. 1974)  It’s all about the LEASE CONTRACT WITH AFP  SC said the ENTRY is NOT PERMANENT because this is just a LEASE of the land.  The appointment of at least 3 competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. may.  SC said NO the ORDINANCE IS VOID. a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation.  SC said that the State.  Plaintiff is a political entity thru its branch. Nihatag lang ang landowner ug gamay nga right of way for the NPC Steel tower to be constructed.Page 12 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  SC said. NPC vs JOCSON (GR-94193-99.  The property right essentially includes the full use of the property while the State may regulate property for the general welfare and not permanently divest the owner of the benefits of the property unless there is just compensation. CITY GOVERNMENT vs JUDGE ERICTA (122 SCRA 759.  In an expropriation case where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation.  BOT entered into agreement with RCA Communications for joint overseas telephone service which PLDT contends that it is a competition of their business and that BOT has violated their agreement in using PLDT’s trunk lines for government-use only. 1969)  PLDT holds a franchise to operate a telephone system.

prices of paid for other lands adjacent to the proposed expropriated land is admissible.. SUPRA  BF and GF caught doing sex in a car. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  There has to be a hearing. BENNIS vs MICHIGAN.  Hence.Computation: Market Value + Consequential Damages – Consequential Benefits = JUST COMPENSATION.  Nagsabot-sabot na ang owner u gang Government but it is not sufficient.MEASURE of the OWNER’S LOSS and not the TAKERS GAIN.However. They took the property 1990 but in 2010 lang gi-institute ang Expropriation proceedings. 1984)  It talks about the access road constructed on a private property. there can be no taking without just compensation even if it’s for regulation purposes because the Government wanted to know kung naa ba’y lahi sagol. 1987)  Expropriation of land for socialized housing. B. in the advent of the new cases. such purpose is sufficient. JUST COMPENSATION .Page 13 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  TRADE SECRETS is a protected property right. 1987)  A favorite BAR question case. PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION vs NEW YORK CITY (438 US 104.. . even if the taking of the property is not for public use in general but it benefits the public. 1984)  Talks about the SECRET FORMULA of a PESTICIDE.  Socialized housing now constitutes PUBLIC USE.  Contention: Gamay ra man ang maka benefit ana. Page 13 of 37 .  Determination of the fair market value is at the time of taking which means that if during the taking said property is classified as Agricultural. the purpose of the expropriation. There has to be a judicial determination.  SC said that it involves taking of property and it must be just compensated.And that they have used an improper rules of assessment MUNICIPALITY OF DAET vs CA (93 SCRA 503. 1978)  Grand Central Terminal to be made by the Government as a Landmark. a broader construction of this concept is being followed.Anyone can use them anytime. Ex.  SC said that just compensation is based on the taking of the property and not at the building of a potential building site. Marijuana.The Commissioners disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence . 1913)  Expropriation of land for the construction of a PUBLIC MARKET.  SC said the Government is not required to compensate because prosecution declared a PUBLIC NUISANCE. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.  SC said the determination of JUST COMPENSATION is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  Essence: Motaas ang market value as tim goed by. . Dili pwede mag buot2 ang Judge. CITY OF MANILA vs ESTRADA (25 PHIL 208.  The car was confiscated. Apparently.  PD 1533 Export Processing Zone – private lands are expropriated in the process for such establishment. Kato ra mang mga beneficially employed  Even if the purpose does not cater the public in general but as long as for the benefit of the public then it can pass to the standard of public use. RUCKLESHAUS vs MONSANTO CO (467 SCRA 986. Hence. CASES (Public Use): SUMULONG vs GUERRERO (154 SCRA 461. Radios and televisions) for the COMELEC.The concept of public use is the taking of properties which are open for the use of public in general. 1995)  SC said there is a taking of property without just compensation in providing space (Newspapers.  While the report of the Commissioner is important BUT the Court may modify the report or substitute its own estimated value where: . PHIL PRESS INST vs COMELEC (244 SCRA 272.  SC said PD 1533 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the law provides that just compensation for expropriated land shall not exceed the value declared by the owner or the value declared by the assessor whichever is lower.The Commissioners have applied illegal principles . 1979)  This involves a public park and street widening project. NPC vs CA (129 SCRA 665.  SC said the basis of the value or amount of just compensation must be based on the fair market value of the property on the time of the taking.  SC said that it constitutes taking of a private property and should be just compensated. you can never ask for a just compensation.  In determining just compensation.  Contention: private property taken by the Government must be just compensated. C. CASES (Just Compensation): EPZA vs DULAY (149 SCRA 305. shabu. . PUBLIC USE .

Page 14 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. COR JESU LAW STUDENT for example making such property is to be constructed with a Hydro Electric Power Plant. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. JUDICIAL REVIEW . does not affect such classification at the time of the taking.There’s no such thing as AUTOMATIC EXPROPRIATION or SUMMARY EXPROPRIATION.The Government may not capriciously choose whatever property may be taken in the exercise of its power (De Knecht Case). hence Industrial.The recognition of the power of the Congress to designate a particular property to be taken in the exercise of the power of Expropriation is still a JUDICIAL QUESTION. Page 14 of 37 . . D. There has to be a Judicial Determination to that effect (Manotok vs NHA. Agricultural lang gyud gihapon. 1987).Extent of Judicial Review in Eminent Domain cases? . 150 SCRA 89. .

The right to claim an unpaid salary is a vested right.Is something that diminishes the efficacy of the contract.  The law that subsists at the time and place of the making of the contract are as if there expressed and it’s being expressed as being incorporated in the term. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 10.Is the law or duty which binds the parties to perform their undertaking or agreement according to its terms and intent.  The case arose during the great depression period. sakto-sakto lang. There are instances when contracts valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid.IF the LAW is the proper exercise of POLICE POWER. It can be altered by the Legislature provided there can never be impairment of a substantial right. or some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or illegal.A contract valid at the time of its execution may be legally modified or even completely invalidated by a SUBSEQUENT LAW. 146 SCRA 323).However.  Aside from the requisite that it must be definite.Contracts which contravene PUBLIC POLICY are NOT LAWFUL (Lozano vs Martinez. .Any lawful agreement on property or property rights. .It does not also cover marriage contracts. like any other property. Because if it becomes unreasonable. the modification of the remedy for the enforcement of the mortgage obligation was reasonable because the interests of the mortgagor-purchaser during the extended period are being safeguarded. 1934)  Talks about the Moratorium Law which increase the period within which to redeem the property that is being foreclosed.Page 15 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. it is VIOLATIVE of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.  In this case. 1953)  There was a Moratorium Law for Pre-War Debts that totaled to 12 years.  The TRUE TEST of the Moratorium Law lies in the determination of the period of the suspension of the remedy and also lies on the safeguard on the part of the creditors. .  SC also took into consideration that the debts are NOT INTEREST-BEARING during the Moratorium period – this is very UNREASONABLE.  As long as the rights of the parties are safeguarded.There will be no impairment if the law is made to operate PROSPECTIVELY.Is impairment clause SUPERIOR to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? NO! LIMITATIONS .  SC said that the 12-year period for the satisfaction of the Pre-War Debt is not oppressive but it is UNREASONABLE. such PROTECTION is NOT ABSOLUTE. That is it should be practical. . . RUTTER vs ESTEBAN (93 PHIL 68. There must be a definite date and it must not oppressive. .The tie that binds the parties to each other . 166 US 685). the Moratorium period must also be REASONABLE. therefore.  SC also discussed that the Moratorium Law provides INJUSTICE to Creditors especially that the creditors are left at the mercy of the debtors. the obligation cannot be paid until the 12-year period will last – it is IMPAIRMENT of the obligations and contracts between the parties.  SC said that the SUSPENSION of the payment of debts can only be VALID if it is DEFINITE. may be taken for public use… subject to the rule of just compensation (Long Island Water Supply Co.Vinculum juriis. .A contract is property and. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. . Page 15 of 37 .The degree of the diminution is immaterial. . by virtue of supervening legislation. 1987)  The employer dismissed the workers because the lease of the land of which the Company has been occupying was not being renewed. you can never say that the contract is being impaired.As long as the agreement deals with a matter affecting the PUBLIC WELFARE. Can never be a subject of a contract.  Imagine. CASES (Non-Impairment Clause): HOME BLDG LOAN ASSOC vs BLAISDELL (290 US 398.” PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION .  SC said the Obligation and Contract is the law that binds between the parties to perform the agreement. . . OBLIGATION . vs Brooklyn. CONTRACT . WHAT IS IMPAIRMENT? .It does not cover LICENSES – grants of privileges which are revocable. .It does not also cover public office because it is not a property right. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Dili siya taas kayo.  SC said the remedy under the contract may be altered or modified by the Legislature provided that there can never be any substantial right secured by the contract that could be impaired. . ABELLA vs NLRC (152 SCRA 140.To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State.

1997)  A. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK vs AGANA (269 SCRA 1. who is still the owner. pwede mo-interfere ang State. This is a VALID EXERCISE of the POLICE POWER.  SC said exercise of POLICE POWER for the improvement of the welfare of LABOR – Legislature may modify contracts already written. Ngano man ka imong mang gi-sub lease and property nga dili man ka part sa agreement?  In order for this to be valid. the Lessor. had credited or is receiving from B.  SC said. Dili nimo pwede tukoran ug any Commercial building.  It does not follow that the relationship may be altered after all.  SC said. should there be any liquidation proceedings. a bank. public faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy – one exercise of the police power of the State.  SC said the workers can never XXX into a contractual obligation between the Lessee and the Employer with that of the Lessor-Lessee relationship because they are not part of the contract. Page 16 of 37 .  Which will prevail?  SC said while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed. So.  SC said that the workers must NOT SUFFER to this kind of arrangement.  SC said. 1990)  It talks about a bank which suffers financial reimburses which had to be liquidated WITHOUT the CONSENT of the stockholders of the Bank.  After the execution of the Deed of Sale.  SC said the RIGHT OF THE WORKERS should always be GUARANTEED.  In the usual practice in the banking industry. the law was passed re: OBLICON. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  Renewal of the Lease is beyond the control of the employer.  The need of the liquidation of that bank is no less compelling which is the preservation of the integrity. 1992)  This is an issue wherein A & B entered into a Lease Contract re: Bldg rental but C. There has to be a particular voting requirement from the stockholders. if the contract becomes unconscionable. a corporation. the contract of the charter bank must also XXX between the contracts to that of the stockholders. which is subject to Lease.  SC gives a preference for the enactment of legislation to safeguard the interest to modify or abrogate the contracts already written. 1979)  This is all about a DEED OF SALE which restricted the buyer of the land in a manner that will only be limited to be used for residential purposes.  They should have had anticipated that there is a Lease contract also which can be modified.  But in this case. Oct 9.  Just imagine employees are dismissed and there can never be an ILLEGAL DISMISSAL kay tungod wala lang na renew ang Lease. SC said even if there is a contract between the stockholders and that of the banking institution which was being previously agreed upon. ORTIGAS & CO vs FEATI BANK (94 SCRA 533. JUAREZ vs CA (GR-93474.  A. every contract is susceptible to changes whenever required by PUBLIC INTEREST. the Municipal Council is reasonably justified under the circumstances in passing of such Ordinance even if there is a contract between the parties. say the Lessor and the Lessee. the true owner.  SC said there is no impairment in this case pursuant to OBLICON because C was unduly profiting or unjustly enriching herself at the expense of another from the sub-lease arrangement since she had sub-leased the property in the amount more than A. the daughter of B. It was contended that such Zoning Ordinance which impairs the contract made by the parties re: use of land limited only for residential purposes.  SC said that to go beyond the Constitutional prohibition. there is a provision there nga dapat once you buy this land. Mas dako pa’g income si C kaysa kang A nga mao’y original owner sa property. with reference to each and NOT with the reference to NON-PARTIES. Ex. The police power is deemed exercise in order to preserve the integrity and stability of the banking system. the rule is NOT ABSOLUTE since it has to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of Police Power. it has to be with the consent of the stockholders of the bank. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. the law must effect a change on the rights of the parties.  It is the duty of the Central Bank in the event of the depletion of funds with mismanagement and irregularities to step into to salvage the remaining resources of the bank unless adequate efforts are taken. Gi-kasohan ni E. there is this so-called Zoning Ordinance which was passed declaring the area as an Industrial or Commercial district.Page 16 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. the use of such land will only be for residential purposes. sold the property. there has to be consent between the parties which is under the Civil Code: OBLICON which the Legislature had passed regulating the unconscionable contracts. such power can be validly asserted to make a change to meet any of the great public needs. by virtue of the Police Power. PHIL VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES vs PVB (189 SCRA 14. in a form of shares of stocks but can only be redeemed after 2 years from the date of issue. obtained a loan from B. Nipalit ka’g yuta. to E who sued B & C for having sub-leased the property without the consent of A which is E is now the owner. SUB-LEASED such property to D.  Having expressly exercised the police power to adopt the Zoning Ordinance regulation.

 Bottom line: There can only be a valid impairment of contractual obligations when it is the State exercises its Police Power. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.Page 17 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. The directive there is to limit the exercise of a right granted by law to a corporate entity to redeem particular shares of stocks is considered a valid exercise of Police Power. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  SC said there is no impairment of contract in this case.  The 2-year issue is embodied in the directive and was issued by the Central Bank Governor to preserve the status quo and to prevent the financial xxx of banking institution to lend out funds. Page 17 of 37 .  Basta the importance of Police Power is that there is a higher degree of a welfare that the State has the right to prevent.

ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.Page 18 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.”  The Commission on Human Rights is being formed or crafted because of this provision. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 11. Page 18 of 37 . FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Right for the inadmissibility as evidence of any confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec 12 and Sec 17 “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 4.  SC said it was obvious that Miranda had never been told in any form of his right to counsel. he must be provided with one. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION “(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. 7. 6. where compulsion is forcefully potential and his will is likely to be subjugated. it is at this stage that the Miranda ruling is necessary since the purpose of the interrogation is to evince evidence that can be used to prosecute a person. the officers must undertake to afford proper SAFEGUARDS by the reading of the Miranda Rights at the outset of the investigation to ensure that the statements made are truly the product of free choice (the choice of the accused to speak or to remain silent). This provision has been crafted to put a stop to that practices of the State Officers. KNOWINGLY c. intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will.  To inform him that his poverty is no reason why he should lose his right to counsel. violence. 5. 1966)  Favorite topic of the BAR!  Talks about custodial investigation – when the investigation focuses on the guilt of a person such that he is no longer allowed to leave the premises. Right to waive his rights BUT only in writing and in the presence of a counsel. Secret detention places. MAGTOTO vs MAGUERRA (63 SCRA 4. or his right to have one during his questioning. he does not have to defend himself alone. Especially Cory did not know asa na gibutang si Ninoy.  To make him aware that this is an adversary system and that the police are not acting in his interest. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 12.  The reading of the rights must not be a mere mechanical reading only but there must be an exchange of conversation in which the suspect must understand his rights which must be explained by the arresting officer.  To lessen the possibility of coercion by the police.  To warn him of the consequences of waiving his right to remain silent. threat. incommunicado. Right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. VOLUNTARILY b.  To overcome the inherent pressure of the interrogating atmosphere.  The officers succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda as the evidence against him. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. And if the person cannot afford to have a counsel. Right to be informed of those rights. Right to remain silent.” “(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.” WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE WHY THIS SHOULD BE SERVED?  To make him aware of it. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. He was also never informed of his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself.  To mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness in his testimony since the inherent pressures initially overcome by the right to remain silent may again run unless coupled with the right to counsel.Page 19 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.”  The subject of so many BAR questions! WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS BEING GUARANTEED BY SEC 12? 1. threat. MIRANDA vs ARIZONA (384 US 436.  SC further said that when the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures.” “(2) No torture. force.  The process of interrogation is intimidating by its very nature and that a suspect must be READ of his RIGHTS to counteract this intimidation.  SC said that all statements of Miranda were INADMISSIBLE. This provision is a guarantee that what happened to Ninoy Aquino can never be happened again just because Ninoy was being very vocal against the Government. force. he must be provided with one. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.  The defendant may waive his rights HOWEVER. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” “(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. 2. violence. Right against being detained in secret detention places. 3. and their families. incommunicado. INTELLIGENTLY  There can be no questioning of the defendant in any case and in any manner if the latter insist for the presence of his Attorney whom he personally chooses unless the person under custodial investigation concedes that another Lawyer who is available will appear before him. that the waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of the counsel: a.  To inform him that if he does not have a counsel or cannot afford to have one. solitary.  To show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to invoke his right. 1997) Page 19 of 37 . It the person cannot afford the services of counsel. Right against being subjected to torture. solitary. intimidation.

 INADMISSIBLE. the statement can be used against him. even if they are actually used after the effectivity date of the 1973 Constitution.  SC said when the accused gave the sworn statement to the NBI agent.  SC said the exclusionary rule applies not only to confessions but also to admissions whether during any court proceedings or any custodial investigation. the investigation was conducted at the police station.  He made a statement before an NBI agent without the assistance of a counsel. . ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of the custodial investigation. the employee was charged of Estafa. In this case. 1981)  The accused surrendered himself and declared the reason of his surrender.  The investigation was merely ADMINISTRATIVE so custodial investigation does not take place yet. WHAT ARE THESE RIGHTS? RIGHTS BECOME AVAILABLE? WHEN PEOPLE vs MARCOS (147 SCRA 204. 1985)  During at the height of the death of Ninoy. The witnesses who were called in the witness stand to determine their probable involvement of the crime being investigated. 1994)  The accused was charged of murder.  Without the rights being read to the accused before they give their manifestations. he was not under police custody. Kung gipangutana lang ka for questioning purposes.  Confessions obtained prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution without reading the Miranda rights.Page 20 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. that person voluntarily admits as to the killing.  SC said the guarantees of the rights in this case are not yet available when the accused only surrender and gives voluntarily such information to the police officers.  Such statement by the accused is ADMISSIBLE and shall be used against him because his admission as to the killing was not made in a formal custodial investigation in which case you are NOT being COMPELLED to say something.  The Constitution safeguards only of the rights of silence and of counsel only DURING custodial investigation when there would be a question and answer portion. it was precisely because he surrendered to admit the killing and NOT because he was BEING ASKED about the crime against him. SC said that the questions of the Board were not meant to determine the surrounding facts and circumstances of the assassination. 1987)  The accused was charged of kidnapping. the security guards admitted the crime without the presence of a counsel.  Counsel of the Employer.  It is very important to know kanus-a siya naa’y custodial investigation.  However.  SC said IT IS ADMISSIBLE.  The policeman received information that the murderer of the deceased wore a security guard uniform.  SC ruled that the Miranda rule applies only to confessions obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution.  2 months later.  The employee was not at any sense under custodial investigation. are ADMISSIBLE evidence. 1. He was even allowed to go home after the investigation. SC said. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  In this case. there was an effort to form Agrava Fact Finding Board to determine who are these people responsible for the death of benign Aquino.  The policeman then approached the one wearing a security guard uniform and asked him: Naa ba Page 20 of 37 PEOPLE vs TAYLARAN (108 SCRA 373. PEOPLE vs MARRA (236 SCRA 565. so long as otherwise VOLUNTARY. there was no written confession which was sought as a result of a formal custodial investigation. and he was merely invited for questioning so that he can SHED LIGHT on the kidnapping incident. What was being testified only is the reason why he surrendered to the police. the right was waived because the investigation was conducted by the Employer. conducted an investigation and with this. the fact that said investigation was done at a police station was merely INCIDENTAL.  SC said it is ADMISSIBLE hence. An employee was being accused of irregularities in the issuance of PAL tickets. Magtoto was made to confess without being warned of his Miranda rights while in custody of the Constabulary. MANUEL vs NC CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY (282 SCRA 328. wala pa siya under a custodial investigation because you were not yet accused of a crime.  ADMISSIBLE because the security guards were not under custodial investigation as they were not charged of a commission of a crime. ADMISSIBLE.  There was an investigation conducted by the Employer thru a committee to conduct the investigation whether or not that employee has committed any irregularities. 1997)  Talks about security guards who stole some goods from the Employer. That information was voluntarily given by virtue of his surrendering to the police.  SC said further that this only conferred on the accused the right to be informed of the charge against him and not the right to counsel. PEOPLE vs JUDGE AYSON (175 SCRA 216. 1989)  Employees of a sales ticket. GALMAN vs PAMARAN (138 SCRA 294.  Even then that the inquiry was not done in the presence of a counsel. There was no effort to warn them of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. So. However. house lawyer of the company.

 SC said it is ADMISSIBLE. PEOPLE vs BALISTEROS (237 SCRA 499. Admission to the Mayor is ADMISSIBLE even without the presence of a counsel because the Mayor is not a law enforcer and the situation was free from police influence during the admission and that the Mayor did not ask any question from you. the totality of circumstances rule. it is ADMISSIBLE even without the presence of a counsel. hence. ADMISSIBLE as evidence which was captured by mass media. INADMISSIBLE with regards to the police because the statement was taken without the presence of a counsel and without being informed of his rights. A was not being guarded with the rights that are due to him.  General rule: Dili part ang right to counsel sa police lineup however kung nagsugod na ang custodial investigation diha pa ang police lineup. the right to have a counsel is being eliminated already. The witness degree of attention. by the phrase that it is admissible against A.  At the same time.  A executed a statement without the presence of a counsel: Yes! Ako nagpatay ato. PEOPLE vs MAQUEDA (SUPRA)  Accused was charged of robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries.  He made 3 admissions: 1. only personal to the confessant and not to another person.  But rather the plea of the accused could be utilized as State Witness. which only A has the right to invoke because it is personal in nature.  The next day. 1997)  The accused was being charged for rape and murder. the “Extra Judicial Admission” made to the prosecutor was not made in the course of a custodial investigation. GAMBOA vs JUDGE CRUZ (162 SCRA 675.  However.  NOTE: That Sec 12 meant only the right of the accused during a custodial investigation. A repeated his admission in Court converting it to a judicial confession. 3. it is admissible as to your own person because you are the confessant and your rights have been violated because wala presence sa counsel. B cannot invoke the right of A. the Court has adopted a particular rule. Ikaw nga nag-confess. the law is said to be against the confessant whose right is violated. another accused. Wala pa ka gi-charge. even without the presence of a counsel. after the start of a custodial or police investigation. 2. The accuracy. 3. Nikanta siya sa pulis 2. Yes. any identification of a non-counsel accused shall be INADMISSIBLE because custodial investigation has already been started.  You have to qualify: 1. The witness opportunity to view the lineup of criminals. invoked his Constitutional rights saying that the statement is INADMISSIBLE since the statement was made by A without a counsel and that B and C were not yet accused and asked of the crime. the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” is INADMISSIBLE because he was not informed of his Miranda rights and that it was made without the presence of his counsel. If you go to court. COR JESU LAW STUDENT kay pusil? The accused admitted Yes! The policeman further asked: Ikaw ba nagpatay sa decease? Yes! Nitubag siya tanan ug YES!  SC said such statements were ADMISSIBLE because he was not yet under custodial investigation. 5. when you say it. He confessed the same to the Municipal Mayor. the process has not yet been shifted from investigatory to accusatory. Giinvestigate lang ka. 4. akoy nag-rape ako po’y nagpatay.  SC said.  He made a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” before a police officer without being told of his Constitutional rights. 1994)  There are 3 accused charged with Murder.  Such Extra Judicial Admission was ADMISSIBLE because it was given to a private individual or person. SC said. POLICE LINEUPS  The right to counsel does NOT EXTEND to Police Lineups because it is NOT PART of the CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. wala ka gbasahan sa imong rights.  B. it has the following factors: 1. he also made an “Extra Judicial Confession” before a certain prosecutor as to the crimes. The level of certain xxx demonstrated by the witness.  SC.  SC said the right to counsel has not yet attached because it has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory even if he had already been charged with vagrancy since the identification is not part of the custodial investigation. 2.  However. 3.  He was imprisoned because of that. there was a police lineup for identification. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 2.  NOTE: That EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION is not part of the Exclusionary Rule under the Bill of Rights.  His declaration of the offense committed may be made evidence against him because he was not yet accused of anything. PEOPLE vs ANDAN (269 SCRA 95. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Exposed to the media after the same admission was made to the media personnel.Page 21 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  In Police Lineups. 1988)  The accused was being arrested and was being charged with vagrancy. He was identified by the witness and thereafter charged with robbery.  Moreover. The accused was also under custodial investigation at the time because there are already charges against him. any identification is inadmissible because there is already a custodial investigation.  In resolving the admissibility and of relying an out-of-court identification of suspects. Page 21 of 37 . Bahala na’g pulis ba nang nangutana nimo. SO. The prime suspect categorically admits his guilt.

1994)  The accused was suspected for rape.  ADMISSIBLE in a Paraffin Test.  It is a police report used by the police officers but it is NOT an EXTRA JUDICIAL STATEMENT. 1991) (PARAFFIN TEST!)  The accused was charged with murder and was subjected to a PARAFFIN TEST without counsel. 1992)  Naay nangawat didto sa balay unya ang owner sa house niingon nga mo-identify siya during the police lineup. PEOPLE vs GAMBOA (GR-91374. When same will be taken away by the law enforcement officers. 6. tagaan gyud ka ug resibo kung pila kabook firearms nakuha. Feb 25.  SC said the right to counsel is not yet attached during a police lineup. PEOPLE vs BANDIN (226 SCRA 299.  This is the only time SC said in a police lineup that it is INADMISSIBLE because it is clear that the police lineup is SCRIPTED. police lineup was being conducted. Mar 6.  Accused was arrested and made to sign a BOOKING SHEET without a counsel. Apr 16.  The right to counsel extends only to testimonial compulsion and not in this case where his body is made subject to a paraffin test. RIGHT TO COUNSEL ESTACIO vs SANDIGANBAYAN (GR-75362. PEOPLE vs HATTON (210 SCRA 1. Siya ra isa kabook didto nga mistiso.  The police officers who made the seizure should be the one to sign the receipt.  SC said the right to counsel is only afforded to a person under custodial investigation whose confession or admission is to be taken. The person who identified the accused could not have been certain of the implication.  SC said it is INADMISSIBLE because the effect of signing the receipt was made to admit the commission of the crime without being informed of his rights. PEOPLE vs ENRIQUE (204 SCRA 64. the identification of the accused was suggested by the police and this is HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE. PEOPLE vs DIMAANO (209 SCRA 819. 3.  The driver in robbery A witnessed the incident and identified the accused in a police lineup without counsel. Because let’s say puro negro ang gibutang didto unya si Hatton ra ang gibutang nga mistiso nya ang naka charge nga mao’y nagpatay kay mistiso. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  SC said it is ADMISSIBLE because vagrancy case is different from the robbery case. mga bala. at the time of the identification. 4.  The booking sheet is merely a report in which the accused is being booked and other incidents of the arrest. 1993) (BOOKING SHEET!)  Accused was caught during a buy-bust operation of selling marijuana.  During the proceedings in the police station.  SC said it is INADMISSIBLE. confessions or admissions. PEOPLE vs LINSANGAN (GR-88589.  But he was detained because of robbery B. the accused was not yet charged of robbery A so he could not invoke yet his right to counsel. 1991)  Accused was caught during a BUY-BUST OPERATION and was made to sign marijuana sticks without being informed of his rights.  SC said while technically wala pa is not yet under custodial investigation.  SC said. 5.Page 22 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. Wala siya na-prosecute sa paggunit niya sa mark money pero na-prosecute siya of his actual selling of illegal drugs.  SC said the signing of the booking sheet DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONFESSION.  SC said he was made to sign his initials without a counsel. PEOPLE vs FRAGO (232 SCRA 653. It has the effect of an EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION made without counsel. PEOPLE vs LOVERIA (187 SCRA 47. 1991) (CEASED PROPERTY RECEIPT!)  Illegal possession of firearms and were confiscated by enforcers. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.  SC said that dili ma-violate ang right kay wala pa naka attach ang right to counsel and the police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation. PEOPLE vs DE LAS MARIÑAS (196 SCRA 504.  After that.  Custodial investigation is when police officers start to ask questions from the accused to elicit information. 1990) (COUNSEL IN OR OUT!)  The counsel arrived at the start of the custodial investigation but was gone while the custodial Page 22 of 37 . The accused without the presence of his counsel was made to sign marijuana sticks. 1990)  The accused was being charged with robbery A and robbery B. the right to counsel could not be invoked by him because police lineup is not a part of a custodial investigation.  Mere POSSESSION of the MARKED BILLS does NOT CONSTITUTE a Crime but the actual selling of the drugs. the accused was made to SIGN his initials in the MARK MONEY. ug uban pa.  There’s no reason to doubt the regularity of the police lineup. 1992)  Accused was charged with murder. He was then compelled to sign the receipt without the presence of a counsel.  The officers failed to inform him of his rights. The mere fact that he was identified for robbery and not for vagrancy.  He was identified in a police lineup. it is ADMISSIBLE because the accused was not denied of his right to counsel when he initialed the marked bills.  The signing of the marijuana sticks amounted to admission and worsts an effect of an Extra Judicial Confession. Booking sheet is not a ceased property receipt. 1991 (MARKED BILLS!)  The accused was caught in a BUY-BUST OPERATION using a MARK MONEY.

therefore. 1992) (COUNSEL THE DAY AFTER!)  The accused was investigated for murder.  The loyalty to the accused and the independence of the counsel is doubtful. the requirement of counsel in this case was not substantially subscribed because the counsel left at the start and came back only on the 2nd night of the detention of the accused. 7. ADMISSIBLE. There was a substantial compliance of the presence of a counsel even then the counsel was PARTLY PRESENT during the investigation.Page 23 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. the statements are still INADMISSIBLE. nag-yawyaw siya.  Hence. such counsel automatically becomes your defense counsel.  While on-board the police vehicle.  SC said the accused had the choice of not signing the statements. you cannot invoke that that is not your choice because it was just provided to you by the investigators but because you have ceded hence. He made the same without being read of his rights to him. Bahala na’g ikaw pa ang highest paid nga Lawyer. PEOPLE vs AGUSTIN (240 SCRA 541.  The interrogation was made without a counsel but the day after the investigation. the confession taken from the accused is valid. May 29. there is still potential compliance with the right to counsel.  In fact. 1992) (POLICE VEHICLE!)  The accused was being arrested for murder. PEOPLE vs JANUARIO (267 SCRA 608. It was too late to complain nga dili diay of his own choice and Lawyer. with the counsel. PEOPLE vs BOLANOS (211 SCRA 262. COR JESU LAW STUDENT investigation proceeded and came back at the time the investigation is closing and read the statements of the accused and other circumstances and the results of the investigation and he talked and explained everything to the accused before the latter signed such investigation result. (ANY COUNSEL CONSENT!)  While the counsel being appointed by the investigators with the conformity of the accused.  Hence. (COUNSEL NOT MY CHOICE!) The accused was provided with a counsel and was accepted by him. kind of counsel does not matter. therefore. PEOPLE vs LUCERO (GR-97936. Not just an ordinary counsel required by law but the counsel must be effective and vigilant.  The accused were made to sign the investigation report. So. as long as your presence should be during the custodial investigation of the accused in order to suffice the right to counsel requirement. you do not have any personal knowledge of the investigation. 1995) (INDEPENDENT COUNSEL!)  The counsel in this case is an Associate of the Law Firm of the private prosecutor. it is valid. It has already shifted from investigatory to compulsory.  Therefore. PEOPLE vs DE JESUS (213 SCRA 345. 1995) (COUNSEL SIGNING PRESENT!)  SC said while the 2 IBP Lawyers present at the time of the signing of the documents but they were not present during the actual custodial investigation. even if the investigation report was made to be signed with the presence of a counsel but the FACT REMAIN that the investigation itself was done without the counsel which was the day before the counsel appeared. Page 23 of 37 . this time.  SC said there is NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.  SC said there was no objection.  Improper counseling would be failure to object to the illegal arrest. INADMISSIBLE in eveidence. PROPER COUNSELING  That the accused under custodial investigation must be continuously and consistently assisted by a counsel from the start.  SC said the statements are INADMISSIBLE bisan pa nitungha si Torney kay wala gyuy pulos ang presence ni Torney. he cannot complain for the first time especially already during the trial of the case. counsel for the police. 1995) (KIND OF COUNSEL!)  SC said. Municipal Legal Officer.  SC said Counsel of the accused in this case was not an independent counsel because there existed a CONFLICTING INTEREST between the private prosecutor in behalf of the complainant and the defense lawyer in behalf of the accused.  SC said.  The counsel must not be a special counsel.  SC said the right to counsel is substantially complied when the lawyer of the accused arrived only at the beginning but was gone during the height of the investigation. How can you be effective and vigilant if you were not there during the investigation? So. therefore. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.  SC said the Associate of the Private Prosecutor is NOT an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL being contemplated. a lawyer was fetched by the police. Sige sugot ko kaysa mobayad pa ko kana pa para ma-libre ko. he was actually employed in the NBI months after he represented as counsel of the accused. So. a private Lawyer who appeared as a private prosecutor. 1997) (NBI COUNSEL!)  SC said that Counsel in this case is not deemed to be a competent and an independent counsel because he is an applicant of an NBI Position. a private or public prosecutor (because its interest is for the State). He said: Ako gyuy nagpatay Tsip!  SC said that the right to counsel is already attached even not yet in the police station since he was already under police custody when he made the confession. he deemed to have chosen such counsel even if he was appointed by the investigators. PEOPLE vs DANIEGA (251 SCRA 626.  According to the SC.

RA 7438 RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED. spouse.” SANCHES vs DEMETRIOU (227 SCRA 627. the law requires that it must be in writing and in the presence of a counsel. PEOPLE vs ROUS (GR-75362. Mayor. upon his request. in the presence of any of the parents. DETAINED OT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. upon a valid waiver. brothers or sisters. Page 24 of 37 .  SC acquitted the accused because the only fatal evidence against him was an extra judicial admission which was ADMISSIBLE. WAIVER  Must have to be in writing  Must be with the presence of the counsel  Even assuming there is waiver. PEOIPLE vs TAN (286 SCRA 675. Mar 6.  As a rule. 1990)  The fact that the counsel of the accused arrived after the investigation had begun and left before it concluded does not negate the validity of said confession for the reason that the confession was put into writing. it is not sufficient for the police officer to just repeat to the person the provisions of the Constitution. COR JESU LAW STUDENT  Important is the advisory of the counsel to the accused as to the consequences of his confessions made during the investigation.  Must be made VOLUNTARILY. KNOWINGLY and INTELLIGENTLY.  When the court reports a person under custodial investigation. DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS. SC said that there is DENIAL of the right to be informed. If a counsel is provided.”  Guarantee under a special law: “A person arrested or detained shall be allowed visits by his immediate family.  Short of the meaningful conversation and effective communication.  Waiver under Art 125 RPC “In every case. 1988)  SC said the Constitutional right of the appellant particularly to the right to counsel are impregnable from the start he is investigated. 1988)  Accused was arrested without warrant for robbery and was convicted.  There is no custodial investigation should be conducted unless in the presence of a counsel engaged by the person arrested or in his behalf appointed by the court by anyone in his behalf. he must also explain the effects in practical terms possible and contemplates and effective communication. 10.  An extra judicial confession made by the person shall be reduced into writing signed by him in the presence of a counsel or in his absence.SC said that a mere perfunctory or mechanical statement of the right does not meet the Constitutional standards. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED  The right to be Informed has been substantially complied with: .Page 24 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  The officer shall ask in the language known and understood by the person.  SC said that in this case Mayor Sanches was already assisted xxx 9. to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. it must be presumed to contemplate a TRANSMISSION OF MEANINGFUL INFORMATION rather than just ceremonial presentation of the abstract xxx principle. the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed. 8.  The accused shall be at all the time assisted with a counsel. Basta pro-forma ra. 1993)  Talks about the absence of a preliminary investigation were held that it does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render the information defective. the accused and the investigating officer proceeded to the office of the counsel. POPLE vs PINLAC (165 SCRA 675. a priest or a counsel. the accused must conform and accede. a medical doctor.

it is a necessary consequence of the bail. Financial capacity. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BAIL  The person claiming the right must be under detention. something noted na nga criminal. Dapat sakto-sakto lang gyud siya.  Strength of the evidence.  After conviction. WHY DOES CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT EXCESSIVE BAIL?  The requirement of an excessive bail is tantamount to a denial of bail. Tagaan pa ba ni ug bail?  Health of the accused. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Dili siya kailangan ug kwarta. Ex.  The right is available to criminal proceedings only.  Penalty imposed.  Probability of appearing in trials. Page 25 of 37 .  Character or reputation of the accused.  The accused shall be available when needed by the court. RIGHT TO BAIL  A BAIL is a security given for the release of a person in custody furnished by him or by a bondsman in the condition upon the appearance before any court as required by law.  Recognizance – an obligation of record entered into by a court guarantying the appearance of the accused in a court trial.  Before conviction.  Nature of the offense.  When the accused is a fugitive from justice when arrested must be high on bail. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 13. 1995)  Bail must not be granted to the accused during the pendency of the appeal. Jan 19.Page 25 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL?  Ability of the accused to post bail. WHO HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL?  The law provides that all persons actually detained except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. This is a nature of contract between a surety and the State. it is discretionary upon the courts. PEOPLE vs NITCHA (GR-113517.  The person bailed cannot leave the country. it may be bailable by sufficient sureties.

Marcos issued a PROCLAMATION lifting the Martial Law and dissolving the Military Commissions. after arraignment. dili open ang mga courts. . . .As summarized in the cases: .  Tackles about CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS in particular.Such right is not a constitutional right . there is a VIOLATION of criminal due process except if there is a VALID WAIVER. . to have a speedy. even then. .  TRIAL IN ABSENTIA – trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused.Right to a hearing before one is condemned. DUE PROCESS . RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED “(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. such re-prosecution is not violative of the right to criminal due process coz wala man ka na-apil sa previous. Provided: 1. . Even if the State is already powerful that it has the capacity to determine which acts are criminal or not which Page 26 of 37 . Olaguer vs Military Commission (150 SCRA 144. Wala man ko na-convict didto.Page 26 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. such newly established courts cannot try or exercise whatever jurisdiction recognizable by the so-called civil courts.The Principal Effect of the guarantee is that No person shall be convicted unless the prosecution must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. and that the one prosecuted was not part of the earlier case in the Military Tribunal.He has to be given an opportunity afforded to him to rebut whatever charges he is facing.Lulling was a watch man employed in the Customs Service. .SC said that the State has a right to determine or declare what acts are criminal with a certain well-defined LIMITATIONS. preponderance of evidence.It is satisfied if the accused has been informed as to why he is proceeded against and as to what charge he had committed. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.Conviction shall only be given if the prosecution has proven that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. impartial. Accused has been duly notified 2.Is purely statutory.There is a Military Tribunal.If there is a waiver but is not a valid waiver.There has to be a TRIAL in accordance with the ruddiness of FAIR PLAY.If there is a re-prosecution. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. not having this right. . 1990) . to meet the witnesses face to face.With his conviction being made to rest evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him for rebutting and the sentence they impose in accordance with law. . . and public trial. . .Is a very light topic. . .SC said that if a particular court being established by the Executive Branch of the Government ex.During the Marcos Regime.” “(2) In all criminal prosecutions.” . . Basic Ingredient of Criminal Due Process .However. there is another case in the DOJ and Tan said ahh di nana pwde kay human naman to ang case sa Military Tribunal.SC said that whatever decisions in the Military Tribunal are only for those who are parties of the case. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. . and other courts were established for such purpose. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION . . MILITARY TRIBUNAL . COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 14.He was criminally charged for soliciting and receiving P100 to secure the importation and delivery of certain rolls of paper where opium was hidden. 1987) .He has to be informed.Military Tribunals are NOT Courts within the Philippine Judicial System no matter how regularly enacted the law establishing such courts. there is therefore a DENIAL of criminal due process.Requires that the accused must be tried in an impartial and competent court in accordance with the criminal procedure. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Military Courts is simply the instrumentality of the Executive Power.After the trial in a Military Tribunal. substantial evidence. It may or may not come out in the BAR.In Civil Case.Petitioners are civilians charged with subversion committed during the Martial Law. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. However. .This is not the court being contemplated under the law. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.Even if courts at that time were not open.While the case was pending in a Military Tribunal.He has to be given his right to meet the charges against him. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE . .SC said that trial being contemplated by the Due Process Clause is a trial by JUDICIAL process and not by Executive or Military Process. Such failure to appear is unjustifiable CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS . US vs Luling (34 PHIL 725. ngano inyo man ning gi-resurrect? .In Administrative Case. 1916) . Tan vs Barrios (190 SCRA 685. .

. Bisa’g unsa pa nimo ka bright but if you do not have the capacity or the training of that of the Lawyers.Requisite to become a Public Prosecutor in that the lawyer must be engaged in the practice of law for quite some time. .SC said that the Right to Counsel before trial extends only critical stages of the pre-trial proceedings. the court should provide him with a counsel de oficio. . so wala na kay choice to run for a candidacy. What proof constitutes a prima facie evidence of guilt? 3. COR JESU LAW STUDENT could arise to a particular criminal action. Dapat trabaho nana sa counsel dili dapat mag apil-apil ang Judge kay Presiding lang sila. Ex.In preparing for the trial.Once ma-filan ka’g kaso. 1950) . shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. 2.The rules of court provides that: 1. This is the so-called in-court identification. liberty and property wherein the prosecution is represented by a very experienced and learned counsel.They were questioning why the court questions more than the counsel has. the court should grant him reasonable time so that he can provide his own counsel. upon demand by any duly authorized officer. SC said that the provision of the law violates the guarantee of Presumption of Innocence. 1953) . If the accused wants a counsel of his own.A public fund held by Mingoa was lost when he attended a show. . you are still given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the charges against you. the SC gives a realistic recognition of that the average defendant does not have the professional skill to protect himself when brought before a criminal power to take his life.BUT. . Bisan pa’g nay namatay as long as there was no intent to kill. 3. . . People vs Mingoa (92 PHIL 856.Even if there is already a prima facie evidence against you. The State must testify what acts shall constitute a crime. then you are disqualified in running.SC said it is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights because this is a realistic recognition that the defendant does not have the professional skill. the proximity of the Elections and the consequence of not having time to rebut. 217 of the RPC Malversation.When arraigned. unya wala kay time to rebut. .SC said that the accused was NOT given the Right to Counsel. . The proceeding was irregular from the very start. . 2.The accused was charged for robbing a bank. RIGHT TO COUNSEL . . Mingoa said wala man ko’y sala ato. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Dans moved for the advance examination of the defense witness. Page 27 of 37 .Unlike in ART. “The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable. It has to be very specific if you could see in your criminal law naa gyud siya’y elements. People vs Holgado (85 PHIL 752.” . .The accused has been charged of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with Imelda. the Prosecutor presented 5 colored photos including Ash’s photo to the 4 witnesses to determine whether or not they were the ones who robbed the bank. it is only homicide but not murder.They were convicted. with an FBI Agent.Mingoa is an Accountable Officer. .Page 27 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.The accused was charged with slight illegal detention. The court should ask him if he desires one. Dans vs People (285 SCRA 504. . The accused must be informed of his right of an Attorney.See Art. If one element is missing.Because although the filing of the charges is a prima facie evidence and may be rebutted.SC said that the Right to Counsel is not granted on photographic displays conducted for the purpose of allowing the witness to attempt to identify the ID of the offender. SC said that the record show that the court may have participated more actively than the usual examination in order to elicit from him information that could nail down the prosecutions’ basic theory. .But it also gives the accuse opportunity to present evidence – to rebut the charge or the presumption that you have misused the public fund. Dumlao vs COMELEC (95 SCRA 392. US vs Ash (413 US 300. If the accused so desires.SC said that the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved – which is the failure to produce. 1998) . 4. then it is already a prima facie evidence.In this case. the prima facie evidence to that effect makes the person charged suffer as if he is already guilty of the crime charged against him. it still has its own limitations: 1. Imagine gamay lang ang time in filing. nga kawaton nako. . it does not anymore constitute a crime or it could be another crime. 1980) . you are still presumed to be innocent until your guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. wala man ko’y intention nga i-corrupt nako. The defendant must have the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and not committed with any criminal intent. but the accused cannot employ one.BP 52 Sec 4 provides for a disqualification of a running candidate if he has been filed with any criminal or civil charges after Preliminary Investigation shall be a prima facie evidence of such fact. 1973) . .The court asked him: Do you have an Attorney or are you going to plead guilty? . 217 of the RPC. .

you have to charge with the higher offense or crime kay pwde pa siya ma-lower down kung dili gyud ma kaya ang taas nga alleged crime or offense.The accused complained ngano gidugay-dugay iyang kaso.How can you say that the Judge is impartial: when the Judge is no longer acting as a Magistrate or a Judge.On 8 different occasions. Judge must not be bias.There has to be a SPECIFIC allegation. the SC gives a relax application of their previous judgment because this is all about the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act together with Imelda. mura’g Abogado? . RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL . to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution of the same cause.But in this case. Enrile vs Salazar (186 SCRA 217.SC said where a prosecuting officer without good cause secures postponement (for than a year) of the trial of the defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable time. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED What are the objects of a written accusation? 1.The judge is there to just preside.SC said that Rebellion is not complex with Murder. . .A Municipal Midwife was made to respond five (5) information against her for various crimes of misdemeanors.Page 28 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. still it cannot cure the defect because it is guaranteed by the Constitution that the accused must be informed of crime the charge against him. . To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him to enable the accused to make his defense. 1924) . Page 28 of 37 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL . Unsa man gyud na siya mura’g huwes.Judge should not give any comment or discuss. the rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible neither the court should not interfere or intervene in the conduct of the trial. .This is the authority when I talk about the OBJECT OF THE WRITTEN ACCUSATION. . 1996) . . . COR JESU LAW STUDENT . .Sometimes the Judge is being bias about the way how you presented the case. Reason for the delay.There is a public interest which is being served in this case since such public funds should have been given to the people but why is it used by only few persons instead of the public in general. . . 1981) . .Regala was being charged with murder with assault upon agent of a person in authority. 1997) . 1990) .Webb has been charged with the crime of rape and homicide.This is all about Rebellion with multiple frustrated murders. Effort of the defendant to assert or invoke his right.Basis: there is a violation of the right to speedy trial.It has to be determined by a lot of FACTORS: 1. 2. Webb vs People (276 SCRA 243.Here.Issue: Whether the respondent Judge should inhibit from hearing the case on the ground of BIAS and PREJUDICE. On the part of the accused. . . . . People vs Regala (113 SCRA 613) .SC said in order to constitute a denial of speedy trial. To inform the courts of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction of the accused.They were convicted. . . .That is why they want to elicit more information that would bolster the theory of the prosecution. 2. Conde vs Rivera (45 PHIL 650. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. Kanang tinuyoan na gyud.Because the lower court is always consistent in denying any motions filed by the defendant.The delay must be attributed to the Petitioners. they questioned the conviction alleging a defect to the essential elements of assault – one of the elements is not being alleged. Prejudice cause to the defendant.They complained because whatever motion they filed. Nepomuceno vs Sec of National Defense (108 SCRA 658. the accused is entitled for a relief to ask for a MANDAMUS to compel for the dismissal of the information or if he had been restrained of his liberty. Judge denies. 3. . .SC said one cannot be convicted of a crime not properly alleged in the information because that would be a VIOLATION of the Constitutional Right. .Judge is already acting a DUAL ROLE as a Magistrate and Advocate. .When you become Lawyers. she appeared with her witnesses and counsel only to find out cge lag ka postponed ang hearing. . Length of the delay.Not only should the Judge be limited to asking any clarificatory questions. .SC said that if a court executes the Q & A instead it should be a job left to the lawyers. the delay must be CAPRICIOUS. Dili pwde general. Pencho vs People (262 SCRA 518. he can also file for a writ of HABEAS CORPUS to obtain freedom.Even then if the other party failed to object. 4.The fact that the crime was established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection from the accused cannot cure the defect with the information so as to validly convict the accused. 3. .SC said the alleged adverse and erroneous rulings of the respondent Judge on the motions do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice to disqualify the Judge.

In this case.In this case.Purpose: is to safeguard against any attempt or danger of the conduct of such trial in an illegal and unjust manner.But. That the court should be properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. provided  The accused has been notified. there should be an ARRAIGNMENT. bad faith. there were charges of malicious mischief. nga mosugot na lang siya nga i-identify siya in his absence.To be disqualifying.  The failure of the accused to be present is unjustifiable.He did not waive his right to appearance during trials.The summary commitment constituted a denial of due process on the ground: 1. . . .But however. .But this provision was being expanded in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution adding the right to have compulsory process to secure the production of evidences and witnesses on behalf of the accused.There were 14 trial dates and were being set on Sunday (aron mag-abot ang tanan parties). . Deretso na ang judge sa summary proceeding. . TRIAL IN ABSENTIA .Wala nay hearing-hearing. the witness is to be understood as referring to him.After arraignment.General Rule: No matters how erroneous and vigorously expressed are not a basis for disqualification of the Judge on the grounds of bias and prejudice. trial in absentia may be proceeded.Under the Statute. there are some cases which do not require preliminary investigation. if the absence of the accused is JUSTIFIABLE.In the 1935 Constitution.Arraignment is a must while in preliminary investigation.Take note that in order that trial in absentia takes place. the accused waived his presence and stipulated that he could be identified by witnesses of the prosecution. 1990) . . 2.There is a Michigan Statute which authorizes a Judge to seat as one-man Jury.Trial may proceed in the absence of the accused.Why is it that arraignment is a pre-requisite in order that trial in absentia may take place: Because it is only during the arraignment that the accused is informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. relatives and the Counsel (ex.The only exception is when the ERROR is so GROSS and PATENT so as to produce bad faith and malice.The accused were made to respond the indictments against them. Carredo vs People (183 SCRA 273. ang naa lang didto is the right to secure the attendances of witnesses in behalf of the accused. . it is not enough that he allows himself to be identified by the witnesses in his absence. the bias and prejudice must be shown to have stem from an extra-judicial source (outside the court) can result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the Judge learned from his participation during the conduct of the case. Jul 25. .SC said that there is a violation of the right of the accused to public trial. 1948) . .Hearings were conducted in the Chamber of Judge Garcia. dapat gyud that there must be a clear streamline that he must further and qualify admits that every time a witness mentions a name by which he is known. .After arraignment. the waiver only means that the accused only waives his right to meet the witness face to face.Basis: Extrinsic evidence is required to establish BIAS. malice. In re Oliver (333 US 257. . corrupt or in addition to the palpable error which may be incurred to the decisions.When can we say that the trial is made in PUBLIC: SC said it does not matter as long as it is proved that the attendance is open to all irrespective of the relationship to the defendant hence.What are the requisites of due process in criminal proceedings: 1. Alonte vs Savellano (287 SCRA 245. the proceeding may be limited to friends. 1973) .It boils down to the right of information. .Discusses due process in criminal proceedings. COMPULSORY PROCESS . a witness was summarily committed contempt due to the inconsistencies of his testimonies with that of other witness.Exception: When the evidence to be presented is offensive to Public Morals. .Page 29 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 1998) . Garcia vs Domingo (L-30104. the court ordered him to appear during the trial for identification of the principal witness. . SC said that he only waive the right to meet the witnesses personally. Page 29 of 37 RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL . Lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard. . ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. . . . . COR JESU LAW STUDENT . . 2. then trial in absentia is invalid. That the jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by the person of the defendant. . .SC said that in order for him to be excused completely from the appearance. . . Secrecy of proceedings.It does not mean a release from his obligation to appear in court during hearings. Rape Case). the compliance of a Public Trial is being complied with. . .When he waived and he did not make an UNQUALIFIED waiver. .SC said such trials and hearing DID NOT violate the right of an accused to public trial (even on Sundays) because there was no showing that the public is excluded.

That the accused is given the opportunity to be heard. 4. COR JESU LAW STUDENT 3. Page 30 of 37 .In this case. the case was remanded since the 4 requisites were served. .Page 30 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. .SC said that there will be NO SHORTCUT with the legal process and there can be no excuse for not affording the accused his full day in court. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. That the judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.

The Congress. if not in session. What is the effect of the suspension of the Right to Bail? .Suspension of the writ does not include the suspension of the Right to Bail. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.What is being suspended is the privilege of the writ.  Ex.Once the detaining officer shows a legal basis in detaining such person which is covered in the suspension. within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension. 1. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. 13).There should be a legal basis of the deprivation of one’s liberty.” . 3. he may. for a period not exceeding 60 days. to do. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. 18 of the 1987 Constitution: “The President shall be the Commander-inChief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary. Marcos and his whereabouts were not known by his family. . may revoke such proclamation or suspension.With the day and cause of his caption and detention. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.The suspension by the President is subject to Judicial Review for as long as there is an appropriate proceeding filed by any person. The Supreme Court may review. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. The case of Ninoy when he was unlawfully detained by Pres. Sec.The right of an immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of the physical liberty.Page 31 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. . Page 31 of 37 . the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. Invasion 2.It is a high prerogative common law writ of ancient origin the great object of which is the liberation of those who may be in prison without sufficient cause. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 15. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. In case of invasion or rebellion. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies.The Constitution provides that the Right to Bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended (Art.  What is the privilege? . . ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. voting jointly. Rebellion  What is therefore this writ of habeas corpus? . 2. the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. the Congress may. The Congress. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. to submit to.”  Two situations when the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended: 1. VII.It is a writ directed to a person who detains another person commanding such person to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place. .The writ is never suspended. when the public safety requires it.The President is entrusted the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Sec. . A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. What covers the suspension? . convene in accordance with its rules without the need of a call. . PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Who will suspend the writ? . in the same manner. . the Court may not require any further. and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. invasion and rebellion. Within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.The Authority is Art. and receive whatever the court or Judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. Upon the initiative of the President. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. III. shall. otherwise he shall be released.

Abarquez vs Rebbosura (285 SCRA 109. the Judge was being dismissed from service and his recurrent benefits were all forfeited and he was precluded from Government employment. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 16. Sec. 14. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 3.Retirable na siya. 2. 1998) . 14 only covers criminal prosecution.The Ombudsman failed to discharge his duty promptly and act to the charges. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. Supreme Court – 24 months from the date of submission. 4. . Estafa and Malversation. Niabot nlng ug 6 years wala gihapon na-resolve sa Ombudsman ang case.  However. 14. . Page 32 of 37 .The Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all Judges to dispose the court’s business promptly and decide cases in the period fixed by law. Sec. . 1. . 16 covers all cases: judicial. or administrative bodies. . quasijudicial and administrative proceedings. Sec.  Take note that this should be read hand in hand with another provision of the Constitution Art. Prejudice cause to the defendant.The respondent Judge concealed the fact of the delay of the case since nagtinamad si Judge. 3. All lower collegiate courts – 12 months. Factors to be considered in the determination whether or not the right of to Speedy Disposition of Trial has been violated? .Same with Sec.Ingon ana ka harsh ang judgment sa SC. 15 (1) which provides the periods for the decision or resolution of cases: 1. pending even if he had already requested the speedy resolution of the case. Angchangco vs Ombudsman (268 SCRA 301.SC said that the failure to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and it constitute gross inefficiency. . Effort of the defendant to assert or invoke his right. Sige la’g ka-pending. Reason for the delay. .Page 32 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 2. . . 1997) .In this case. VIII. Length of the delay.The Deputy Sheriff was being of charged with Graft and Corruption.SC said failure to resolve the case for more than 6 years thereby transgressive on part of the accused of his right for a speedy disposition of trial. quasijudicial.The Ombudsman was ordered by the SC to issue the clearance to the accused since there has a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. All lower courts – 3 months.”  This is synonymous to Sec. sige lag lakwatsa si Judge.  But.SC said that a Judge is mandated to render a decision for not more than 90 days from the time the case was submitted for decision.

Can there be a waiver of this right?  YES!  Either directly or by a failure to invoke it.  When the accused is immune from suit.But.At a first glance. . COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 17. administrative actions and legislative investigations. RIGHT INCRIMINATION AGAINST SELF- be prosecuted since he has been acquitted or convicted in the past. . Artificial Persons must submit to the investigative powers of the State at all times being mere creatures of the State. US vs Ong Siu Hong (36 PHIL 735. . Certain.  Humanitarian because it is intended to prevent the State. Because it is not a testimonial compulsion. as to ARTIFICIAL persons (Partnerships.  Provided the waiver is: 1.  However.  However. the portion of that substance from the accused’ body or asking your body to be part of an examination is not a violation of the accused’ right.SC said. it will be inadmissible as evidence in court against the accused. Unequivocal.  The purpose of soliciting questions that may be pointed back to you.SC said.There was a positive result out of that substance of his body: Gonorrhea.Charged with the possession of morphine.What is being violated when it talks about testimonial compulsion. Chavez vs CA (L-29169 Aug 19. . . . . 1968)  SC said that a PERSON ACCUSED of a crime may invoke the right by refusing to take the witness stand. the accused was not being compelled to be a witness against himself. 1904) . SC said that it is not a violation of selfincrimination asking the accused a portion of a substance emitting from his body. .Accused was being charged of Acts of Lasciviousness and the rape of a 7-year old girl. Mura’g ikaw ra gihapon ang mahimong makasasala sa imong mga statements. When is this right inapplicable?  When there is a valid waiver.  For NATURAL persons. US vs Tan Teng (3 PHIL 143. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. as to the WITNESSES. from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him. Intelligently. understandingly and willingly made.” What is therefore this right?  Has its roots in common law and is based on Humanitarian and Practical considerations. .All evidences that are being taken from the accused are all admitted in court. . . Because there is no other way for that witness to know in advance the nature of the pointing of question which is being asked to you. if your are asked to produce that morphine in your mouth. . with all its coercive powers.It is not tantamount to compelling the accused to be a witness against his own. gipagawas lang sa imong body.You are not being pressured because the even in the presence of the Police Officers.  The reason is the assumption that the purpose of the interrogation is to incriminate you.You are not producing evidence against your own self because it was already there.  The right against self-incrimination should not be construed to mean an exclusion of one valid evidence if it is material to a particular case.Page 33 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY.  When the question asked relates to a past criminality for which the witness can no longer . they cannot invoke this right. such witnesses may only invoke their rights every time an incriminating question is being asked. What is the consequence of violating this right?  The same in all other violations of the Bill of Rights because whatever evidence obtained against you. both in civil and criminal cases.The woman was being charged of Adultery. Because according to this case. . When is this right available?  Available in all Government proceedings which includes criminal.Because it does not exclude the body as evidence if material in the case. 3. 2. . 1917) . they avail of this right.In this case. the substance is in your body. Who can claim this right?  This right may be claimed not only by the person accused of an offense but by any witness to whom an incriminating question is asked.  Practical because a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection. it is a violation of the right to self-incrimination. Corporations etc). What is the reason behind this?  SC held in number of cases that the essence of the privilege if the prohibition of testimonial compulsion. 1920) .The accused place the morphine in his mouth to hide them. Villaflor vs Summers (41 PHIL 62.So. the SC rendered that submitting a woman accused of Adultery to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy is VALID. In other instances: . Page 33 of 37 “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. civil. the accused was being asked by the court a portion of a substance emitting from the accused’ body for scientific analysis.SC said that it is not incriminating and therefore ADMISSIBLE.

the witness is compelled to write which creates evidence which does not exist at the moment. the Petitioner may suffer a forfeiture of property in a form of revocation of license as medical practitioner. you can invoke your right against self-incrimination.Such law made the accused to choose to be a witness against himself which shall mitigate his penalty OR not to be a witness and take a more serious punishment. writing is not a purely mechanical act. the exemption of the accused of being a witness against himself is applicable. they were made admissible before the court.Because the Penal Law forcing a defendant to be a witness against himself para the burden of providing the evidence may grant you a lesser penalty. d. It is produced by the body.In other parts of the body. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. COR JESU LAW STUDENT .SC said that while the evidences are not testimonial in character.SC said once you are subjected into something into particular statements that will point a finger against you.The petitioner was made to appear before the fiscal to take dictation of your own handwriting.Once you are called by the Board of Medical Examiners. or the hand. how about HANDWRITING. c. US vs Navarro (3 PHIL 143. . . . . e. Page 34 of 37 . 1904) .SC said even if it’s not civil or criminal in nature kay gipaadto lang ka didto to shed light or something. or the fingers. .SC said that the very statement of the accused of the whereabouts of the victims amounts the confession that the accused unlawfully detain the person. the accused is compelled to write to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier. Paraffin Test. . it is not yet given. . (L-19052 Dec. In both cases. Voice identification because voice does not change. because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. in the present case.This is all about MALPRACTICE. . . DNA sampling.However.Examples (which is not considered as incriminating): a. Blood sampling. . SC said that you can validly invoke your right against self-incrimination before the Committee because there will be a forfeiture proceeding which will take place – SC said it is deemed criminal or penal in nature. . ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. it is already given while in writing. b. . 1962) .Because forfeiture of property is in substance a criminal procedure and in a nature of punishment. Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners (L-25018 May 26. The latter is more serious than the former since. therefore.Forfeiture of property is similar to that of criminal proceeding. But SC said that: Writing is something more than moving the body. there is a crime of illegal detention.Page 34 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 1969) . 1929) . . To wear a pair of pants if it were of your size. Jr.There was one instance that a Penal Law was being set aside by the SC for being violative of the right against self-incrimination.The accused is made to face an investigative committee to shed light on the issue of unexplained wealth. Beltran vs Samson (53 PHIL 570. .A case about Graft and Corruption.In this case. in a case of Falsification.The penalty suffered is revocation is more than just an imprisonment. . 29. HYBRID CASES: Cabal vs Kapunan. .Hence.There’s a charge of Falsification of documents.SC said there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document and one who is compelled to produce a specimen of his own handwriting. .

”  Brought about by what Ninoy Aquino has suffered during the Martial Law. Sec. or imprisonment. to render personal military or civil service. DETENTION BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS & RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE “(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.Is the condition of one who is compelled by force. Justified under the Police Power. real or pretended.  Art.EXCEPTIONS:  Punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. coercion. Page 35 of 37 . whether he is paid or not. and against his will. Ex. .  You can never be detained whatever political colors and whatever beliefs you may have.  Naval enlistment – crew may be compelled to remain in such service until the end of the voyage for which he is contracted. to labor for another. Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation.Concept includes: 1. under conditions provided by law. and to observe respect and reverence toward them always.  Unemancipated minors under the patria potestas – are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power. Teachers who strike curtail the right to education of students.  Striking workers in industries affected with public interest may be required to return to work pending settlement of the labor dispute – to prevent disruption. of essential services being performed by the strikers. . II. fortune and liberty of another.  Posse Comitatus for the apprehension of criminals – commands all male of a certain age to assist them. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 2.Page 35 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 4 of the Constitution: All citizens may be required. What is Involuntary Servitude? . against his will.” “(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. to the detriment of the public. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 18. Slavery – the civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life.

Shocking to the moral public sense. Ex. DEGRADING AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS “(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed. PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL. . Nature and seriousness of the offense. People vs Echegaray (267 SCRA 682.Page 36 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. 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.One which exposes the accused to a disgrace. There a law. Page 36 of 37 . . . .The law must be prospective.Ex.Rape is an outrage against decency and dignity. psychological. nor cruel. Nangawat ka. nga pwde man unta mabayaran lang ang gikawat sa gamay nga kantidad o punishment. if it is advantageous to the accused.It is beyond the law. Neither shall death penalty be imposed. 3.SC held “Death penalty is penalty is imposed to heinous crimes because the perpetrator hereof has committed unforgivable acts that have deeply dehumanized a person. Purpose of the law. The crime was being given before the law has been passed. .  Factors to be considered: 1. And it is disadvantageous to the accused.When it includes degrading punishment.What should be followed is the old law which is favorable to the accused.However. When penalty is cruel? . 1997) . Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua” “(2) The employment of physical. ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN. 2. life sentence dayon ang penalty. . Moral depravity of the accused. then the new law could be invoked in favor of the accused.Accused was convicted of raping his 10-year-old daughter. the Congress hereafter provides for it. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 19. 1997) . . People vs Derilo (271 SCRA 633. . degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.”  Talks about EXCESSIVE PENALTY when it is flagrantly oppressive or disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to SHOCK the moral sense of the community. unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.

If it arises ex contractu. It is not the payment which the law punishes… The law punishes the act not as an offense against property.The thrust of the law is to prohibit.If the debt constitutes ESTAFA. under pain of penal sanctions. . the gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. .The accused is penalized for the deception in securing the debt and not because of the default in paying the debt. Crime .Can you just imagine tungod lang sa iyang kapobre. ma-priso kay dili makabayad sa utang. Debt . ZENY CONCEPCION FERROLINO TRANSCRIBED BY GAMEL DEAN.It is adopted pursuant to the social justice policy. the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation because of its deleterious effects on the public interest. if it arises ex delicto. Poll Tax . . Page 37 of 37 . 1986) . Lozano vs Martinez (146 SCRA 323. a TAX is NOT a debt since it arises from the obligation of the person to contribute his share in the maintenance of the government. arising from contract.” What is the purpose of this provision? . . the accused cannot be imprisoned. COR JESU LAW STUDENT SEC 20.BUT. the accused can be convicted. . it is proscribed by the law. PROHIBITION IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT AGAINST “No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax. . . a product of a particular wrong doing. .To added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because only of their misfortune of being poor.However. hence. Debtor and Creditor.A civil obligation expressed or implied. . reflects the tender regard of the law for the millions of our impoverished masses who cannot afford even the nominal cost of a poll tax like the basic community tax certificate. Ex. the act for which he is penalized is the deception he employed in securing the debt. Ex.A specific fixed sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation.In such a case.But although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt. Cedula.Page 37 of 37 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (SECTIONS 4 – 20) LECTURES OF ATTY. but an offense against public order. .The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. failure to pay the same can be validly punished with imprisonment.SC said. not his default in paying it. he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through FRAUD. the accused can be IMPRISONED.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful