CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Contains Political and Civil Rights
Limitations on the power of the
government
Without the BOR the State can
practically do anything and you cannot
complain
Example:
1) Without Section 9, they can take your
property any time of the day and
night and you cannot complain, but
because of such section (limitations
on the power of eminent domain) the
state cant just do that. There must
be just compensation and due
process.
Remember
that
this
property is to be converted for public
use, and because of this, the party
can bring about expropriation and
challenge such if it will really be for
public use.
2) Without Section 2 (right against
unreasonable searches and seizures)
you can be easily searched and
arrested at any time of day and night
and you cannot complain, and
because of section 2 a warrant of
arrest or search warrant

o 1968 case of Morfe v. Motuc

adopted the Griswold ruling that
indeed there is a constitutional right
to privacy, and the SC said, indeed,
if we extend our judicial gaze, we will
find that the right to privacy is
recognized and enshrined in several
provisions of our constitution, it is
expressly recognized in Section 3(1)
of the BOR, right to privacy in
communication. But aside from that,
the right to privacy is found in
several parts of the BOR like those in
Section 1 (right to due process),
Section 2 (right against reasonable
searches and seizures), Section 6
(right to liberty of abode, changing of
abode, right to travel), Section 8
(freedom of association includes
freedom not to associate), and
Section 17 (right against selfincrimination)
you
cannot
be
compelled
to
testify
against
yourself.
o There are also sources of privacy that
are protected in our laws like the
CC
(Human
Relations),
RPC
(Revelation of Trade and Industrial
Secrets, Trespass to dwelling), RA
4200 (Wire-Tapping), Secrecy of Bank
Deposits
Act,
The
Intellectual
Property Code, Rules of Court in
Privilege
Communication,
and
Section 24, Rule 130, Par. C (Husband
and
Wife
Relations),
Priest
Confessant, Doctor-Patient, LawyerClient (Privileged Communication)

Three Important Parts of the

Constitution:
1. Constitution of Government
2. Constitution of Liberty (essentially it
refers to the Bill of Rights)
3. Constitution of Sovereignty

Right to Appeal not a right under

the BOR, it is not a constitutional right,
it is merely statutory, so that if there is
no law granting appeal then you
cannot appeal

Right to Privacy Yes there is such

right (Ople v. Torres), because the
essence of privacy is the right to be let
alone
o 1965
case
of
Griswold
v.
Connecticut SC said, the right to
privacy
has
a
constitutional
foundation, it said that there is right
to privacy that could be found in the
penumbras of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and
9th amendments

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

Right to a Balance and Healthful

Ecology not in Article 3 but in Article
2 (16) for it is a different kind of right,
for it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and self-perpetuation,
need not be in the constitution for it is
assumed to exist in the inception of
humankind
(intergenerational
responsibility)

Exclussional Rule in Evidence (4

sections of the Bill of Rights)
o Section 2, 3(2), 12(3), 17 any
evidence or any admission or
confession obtained through any of
these 4 will not be admissible,
excluded by the constitution
U

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
o
o

INCOMPETENT
EVIDENCE

excluded by the law, it becomes the

fruit of the poisonous tree
COMPETENT EVIDENCE not
excluded by the law or rules

walking = the law appears to be

unfair and unjust, what is involved
is substantive due process, it
strikes deep into the very heart of
due process
(2) Taada v. Tuvera (publication)
secret decrees promulgated by
President Marcos; SC said that they
should first be published (applying
art. 2 (CC)) even if the law says
that
it
shall
take
effect
immediately,
but
you
cannot
dispense
the
requirement
of
publication provided in Art. 2
WHY? imagine holding you
responsible for a law you know
nothing of this is under DUE
PROCESS, depriving life, liberty and
property w/o due process of the
lawthis strikes very deep at the
very essence of due process take
note that substantive due process
requires that the law itself must be
fair, not just merely the procedure
by which the law will be imposed
NOTE: If the law is unpublished,
ART. 3 (Ignorance of the Law)
cannot be applied, for ignorance of
the law require that the law be
published because if the law is
published, no one can already
claim ignorance of it

SECTION 1 (1) RIGHT TO DUE

PROCESS OF LAW; (2) RIGHT TO
EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
and property without the due process of
the law.
- The catch-all provision (Art. 19 (CC) is
its counterpart Abuse of Rights): can
be used when there is no longer any
argument to be used
When to Invoke?
GR:
(1)
Equal
Protection
discriminatory act of the government,
guarantee against DISCRIMINATION
(2) Due Process of Law
unreasonable act of the government
(whimsical,
capricious,
oppressive,
confiscatory)
a. DUE PROCESS

2 kinds of Due Process

When one speaks of the due process
of the law, a distinction must be made
between the matters of procedure and
the matters of substance
- Corona v. United Harbor Pilots
Association of the Philippines
(1) Substantive requires that the
law
itself,
not
merely
the
procedures by which the law is
enforced, is fair, reasonable and
just
(2) Procedural (first to evolve) in
essence, refers to the method and
manner by which the law is
enforced [Essence: Notice and
Hearing (Opportunity to be
Heard); Origin: Eve, forbidden
tree]

ILLUSTRATION:
(1) In view of the worsening traffic
situation, the congress enacted a
law, making it a criminal offense
penalizing
it
with
reclusion
perpetua any person caught jay

NOTE: The kind of due process that is

usually used in courts is different from
those in an administrative proceeding,
those observed in the courts (Judicial
Due Process) are more strict and
those
in
the
Administrative
Proceedings are only liberal, in the
first place, the kind of evidence
required is a law kind of evidence
substantial evidence
Substantial Evidence
- Such relevant evidence which a
reasonable
mind
will
find
adequate
to
sustain
a
contention (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
Kinds of Procedural Due Process
(1) Judicial (E.g. Proceedings in MTC,
RTC, SC, Sandiganbayan, etc.)
(2) Administrative (E.g. Law on
Evidence Cases, Civil Service
Cases, Proceedings before quasijudicial body)

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The
power
of
administrative
agencies are regulatory in nature
Due Process was introduced in
administrative
agencies,
specifically
its
administrative
tribunal, so that they do not
exceed their regulatory power.
Due Process applies only in
adjudicative/quasi-judicial
functions of the administrative
agencies.
In
its
regulatory
function,
procedural due process does not
apply; however, substantive due
process may come into play in its
regulatory functions.
7 Cardinal Primal Rights in
Administrative Proceeding (Ang
Tibay v. CIR)
1. The right to a hearing, which
includes the right to present
ones case and submit evidence
in support thereof
2. Tribunal must consider the
evidence presented
3. The decision must have
something to support itself
4.
Evidence
must
be
substantial,
meaning
reasonable evidence as a
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support a conclusion (LAW
ON EVIDENCE)
5. The decision must be based on
the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the
affected parties
6. The tribunal or any of its
judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the
law and the facts of the
controversy
7. The tribunal should, in all
controversial questions render its
decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceedings can
know the various issues involved,
and the reason for the decision
rendered.

Development in this Area of Due

Process

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

FIRST MARK JIMENEZ CASE

(Secretary of Justice v. Lantion)
Mark Jimenez Cases (it involves
procedural due process) Is Mark
Jimenez entitled to those documents
that he was requesting so that he
can prepare for his defense?
Remember that the Mark Jimenez
Cases has something to do with
EXTRADITION. Remember that we
have an extradition treaty with the
US, the RP-US extradition treaty, and
remember
that
we
have
an
extradition law (PD 1069 the law
which seeks to implement the
extradition treaty that we entered
into with the other states)
Mark Jimenez also known as Mario
Crespo (Crespo v. Mogul); used to
stay in the US and later on decided
to return to the Philippines, the
American Government knew this, and
they requested to the Philippines
pursuant to the Extradition Treaty to
have him arrested here and to face
his pending cases in the US, the
request was brought to the DFA, and
pursuant to PD 1069 brought the
case to DOJ for initial evaluation.
Mark Jimenez knew of it, then he
requested from the DFA copies of the
extradition claim and the supporting
evidences and documents so that he
can, allegedly, prepare for his
defense. The DOJ did not want to do
so, and so Jimenez elevated the case
into the SC the question now
becomes one of the DUE PROCESS
Jimenez said, How can I prepare for
my defense if I would be denied of
copies of the documents which I am
requesting? he invoked his rights to
due process.
In a decision rendered in January
18, 2000, the SC by a vote of 9
against 6 ruled in favor of Mark
Jimenez, indeed according to the SC,
there was a denial of due process,
how can he prepare for his defense if
he will not be given documents that
he was requesting.
This we must understand, what was
the basic premise of the January 18,
2000 ruling? The basic premise was
this, that an extradition proceeding is

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

similar to a criminal proceeding and

likewise the initial evaluation stage in
an extradition proceeding is also
similar to a preliminary investigation
of a criminal case. So if you will
deny Jimenez of the documents, you
deny him of his righto due process,
but remember even in that ruling
there
were
already
dissenting
opinions. In fact, one of this said,
this is no longer a question of due
process; this is now a question of
over due process, what now happens
to our obligation to extradite under
the RP-US treaty, especially in our
view of the pacta sunt servanda.
(dissenting
opinion

January
decision)
But then, the story did not end there,
the
DOJ
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration, now 9 months later,
on October 17, 2000, the SC, in one
of those rare instances, again in the
vote of 9 against 6 reconsidered, and
this is now the doctrine in the motion
for reconsideration, an extradition
proceeding is actually sui generis, a
class by itself, it is not similar to a
criminal proceeding which will call
into operation the rights of the
accused as guaranteed under the Bill
of
Rights.
(The
controlling
doctrine)
A criminal proceeding involves the
determination
of
the
guilt
or
innocence of an accused. In an
extradition proceeding, a persons
guilt or innocence will be determined
in the course of law of the requesting
government.
As
a
rule:
constitutional rights which are only
relevant to determine the guilt or
innocence of an accused cannot be
invoked by an extradity, especially
one whose extradition papers are still
undergoing
evaluation.
Our
extradition proceeding is also a
summary proceeding (PD 1069)
compared to a criminal procedure
which cannot be a summary only; it
will require a full brown trial,
adversarial. The President has the
last
say
in
the
extradition
proceeding.

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

EXTRADITION
PROCEEDING
1. does not involve
determination of
guilt
2. summary in
nature
3. liberal
interpretation
applies
4. the court may
declare a person
extraditable but
the president has
the last say
5. presumption of
innocence is not
applicable

CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING
1. involves
determination of
guilt
2. adversarial in
nature which
requires a full
blown trial
3. strict
interpretation of
rules on evidence
applies
4. the court has
the final say

5. presumption of
innocence is
applicable

SC said, since an extradition

proceeding is not criminal
in
character, and the evaluation in an
extradition proceeding is not similar
to a preliminary investigation, the
due process safeguards during
preliminary investigation do not
necessarily apply in the evaluation
stage of an extradition proceeding.
This we hold, for the procedural due
process required by given set of
circumstances must begin with the
determination of the precise nature
of the government function involved
as well as the private interest as may
be affected by the governmental
action, the concept of due process is
flexible, for not all situations calling
for procedural safeguards call for the
same kind of procedure
Let us be clear, in the motion for
reconsideration, the court did not say
that Mark Jimenez is not entitled to
those documents, what they are
simple saying is that, not at that
early stage of the proceeding they
are only in the initial evaluation
stage at the DOJ and at that time he
was not yet arrested (NOTE: An
Extradity is always presumed to be a
flight risk) purpose of detention and
warrant! The documents would still
be given to him, but not until the
U

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

extradition proceeding has been filed

in court. Here the court applied the
balancing of interest in resolving the
question.
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
there are two competing interest,
both are good for the society, the
only question there is that, given the
circumstances, which of the two
choices should be upheld by the
court. In this situation, the two
conflicting interest are the RP-US
Extradition Treaty and the due
process proceeding for Mark Jimenez.
The Court ruled at the more
compelling state interest at that
stage to prevent the escape of the
potential extraditees. SC said that
this is but a soft restraint on his right
to due process at this stage,
eventually he will be given such once
his claim is filed at the RTC.

SECOND MARK JIMENEZ CASE

(Government of the USA v. Judge
Purganan)
Sept, 24, 2002
A. First Issue of Noble Impression
After evaluation, the DOJ now filed
the petition for extradition in the RTC
of Manila, so in other words the
proceeding have advanced now, from
initial evaluation stage in the DOJ,
the proceeding has become judicial
now. Remember, a proceedings
nature is bound to change; now it is
judicial, subject to the control of the
court. Now take note of that.
Now, under Sec. 6 of PD 1069
(Extradition Law), once the petition
for extradition is filed in court, the
court must immediately issue a
warrant of arrest. One important
issue, in fact, a noble issue, an issue
of first impression in the second Mark
Jimenez Case was this, before a
judge can issue a warrant of
arrest for an extraditee, is a
prior notice required? Now in that
case the judge thought so, the SC
said that is NOT correct on 2 bases:
(1) statutory, (2) constitutional.
STATUTORY
Is a prior notice required before
a judge may issue a valid

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

warrant
of
arrest
of
an
extraditee? The SC said NO, on the
basis of PD 1069 itself. Look, it is
significant to note that section 6 of
PD 1069 uses the word immediate
to qualify the arrest of an accused;
this qualification would be rendered
insignificant by setting for hearing
the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
Hearing entails sending letters to
opposing parties, receiving facts and
arguments from them and giving
them time to prepare for such facts
and arguments. Arrest subsequent to
a hearing can no longer be
considered immediate. The law could
have intended the word immediate
as a mere excess, but as a whole as
a means of impairing a sense of
urgency and swiftness on whether or
not a warrant of arrest should be
issued. And then the court went
further by using the phrase, if it
appears, again in section 6 of PD
1069, the law further conveys that
accuracy is not as important as
speed at such early stage, the Trial
Court is not expected to make an
exhaustive determination to ferret
out the true and actual situation
immediately upon the filing of all the
petition. From the knowledge and the
material then available to it, the
court is expected merely to get a
good first impression, a prima face
finding sufficient to make a speedy
initial determination as regards the
arrest and detention of the accused
CONSTITUTIONAL
Under Section 2 of Article 3
(Right
against
unreasonable
searches and seizures), is a prior
notice required before a judge
may issue a valid warrant of
arrest of an accused? What are
the requirements for the issuance of
a valid warrant of arrest? (1)
Probable cause, (2) to be determined
personally by a judge, (3) after
examination
under
oath
or
affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses that may be produced,
(4) particularly describing the person
to be arrested. There is NO mention
of prior notice and hearing, on the

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
contrary it says there, after the
examination
under
oath
and
affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses that may be produced
and NOT that of the accused.
Because indeed you can just
imagine, for example, the case of the
person is murder or rape with
homicide or kidnapping and then,
before the judge will issue a warrant
of arrest a hearing would still be
needed,
that
was
never
a
requirement, notice and hearing was
NEVER a requirement before a judge
could issue a warrant of arrest under
Section 2 of the Bill of Rights. The SC
said, to determine the probable
cause for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest, the constitution itself only
requires the examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses that may be produced
and NOT of the accused; there is no
requirement to notify and hear the
accused before the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. In Web v. de
Leon, the Court categorically stated
that the judge was not supposed to
conduct a hearing before issuing a
warrant of arrest.
B. Second
Issue
of
Noble
Impression
Assuming
that
he
is
now
arrested and under the custody
of the law, and during the
pendency
of
an
extradition
proceeding in the RTC, should he
be allowed to post-bail? The Court
said NO, because as suggested by
the use of the word conviction. Under
Section 13 of the Bill of Rights (Right
to Bail), as suggested by the use of
the
word
conviction,
the
constitutional provision on bail, as
well as section 4 of Rule 114 of the
Rules on Court for Bail, applies only
when a person has been arrested
and
detained
for violation
of
Philippine Criminal Laws, it does not
apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or
acquittal.
Moreover,
that
constitutional right to bail flows from

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

the presumption of innocence of

every accused in a criminal case, it
follows
that
the
constitutional
provision on bail will not apply to a
case like extradition where the
presumption of innocence is not an
issue. In other words, following this
ruling, the NO BAIL RULE applies in
extradition. However, the SC said, by
way of an exception, he may be
allowed to post-bail.
Q: What are the conditions necessary
to enable an extraditee to post-bail?
A:
1. That once granted bail, he will not be
at flight risk or a danger to the
community
2. That there exist special, humanitarian
and compelling circumstances that will
justify the grant of bail given to him.
Q: Who has the burden of proving the
following conditions?
A: The applicant or the extraditee, with
the use of clear and convincing evidence.
Q: What is meant
convincing evidence?

by

clear

and

A: It is evidence lower than that of proof

beyond reasonable doubt required in a
criminal
case
but
higher
than
a
preponderance of evidence required in a
civil case.
VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE and
THE DOCTRINE OF OVERBREADTH

Void for Vagueness doctrine the

law must be declared void for being
vague because it lacks comprehensible
standards so that men of ordinary
intelligence will probably have to guess
as to its meaning and differ as to its
application. According to the SC, such
act is repugnant to the constitution in
two aspects:
1. It violates due process for failure to
accord persons fair notice of the
conduct to avoid
2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled
discretion in carrying out its
provisions and in effect it becomes

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

an
arbitrary
flexing
of
the
government muscle
In here, the law must be utterly
vague on its face, that it cannot be
explained by a saving clause or by
construction, because, if it can be
saved, then the court should not
declare such as void for being vague.
Such is a strong medicine and should
be used only sparingly (David v. GMA).
NOTE: Because can you imagine
violating a law that you cant even
understand
since
it
is
vague
(Substantive Due Process). It strikes to
the very essence of due process. It
makes you liable for an act which in
the first place you did not fully
understand. You are being deprived of
life, liberty and property without the
due process of law.
E.g.: Coach v. City of Cincinnati
What was included here is an
ordinance enacted by the City of
Cincinnati making it illegal for any
three or more persons to assemble in a
sidewalk
and
there
conduct
themselves in a manner annoying to
persons passing by. Clearly it makes no
standards at all, because for one, no
one can know in advance what annoys
other people but does not annoy
others.
Doctrine of Overbreadth the law is
overbroad when it operates to inhibit
the exercise of individual freedoms
affirmatively
guaranteed
by
the
Constitution such as the freedom of
speech or religion. A generally worded
statute when construed to punish
conduct
which
cannot
be
constitutionally
punished
is
unconstitutionally vague to the extent
that it fails to give adequate warning of
the
boundary
between
the
constitutionally permissible and the
constitutionally
impermissible
applications of the statute.
NOTE: As you can see, in here, the law
itself is not vague, however, in its
application it operates to inhibit
individual
freedoms
affirmatively
guaranteed by the Constitution. In
other words, it is so sweeping that it
fails to give adequate warning of the
boundary between the constitutionally

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

permissible and the constitutionally

impermissible applications of the
statute.
E.g.: Adiong v. COMELEC
In the 1992 Elections, the SC struck
down
as
void
for
overbreadth
provisions prohibiting the posting of
election propaganda in any place
including private vehicles other than
in
the
common
poster
areas
sanctioned by the COMELEC. SC held
that the provisions not only deprived
the owner of the vehicle the use of his
property but also deprived the citizen
of his right to free speech and
information. The prohibition in Adiong,
therefore, was so broad that it covered
even constitutionally guaranteed rights
and, hence, void for overbreadth.
b. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Q: What is equal protection clause all
about?
A: In its simplest formulation, persons or
things similarly situated in terms of rights
conferred and obligations imposed should
be treated similarly. Conversely, if they are
not similarly situated, then they should not
be treated similarly.
NOTE: We must take note however that the
Equal Protection Clause does not guarantee
absolute equality. What it merely guarantees is
equality among equals. It must also be noted
that not classifications in the equal protection
clause are invalid; there are also those which
are of valid classification.

Q: What are the requisites for a valid

classification?
A: (S-A-G-E)
1. The classification must be based upon
substantial distinction
2. The classification must apply equally
among members of the same class
3. The classification must be germane to
the purposes of the law
4. The classification must not be limited
to existing conditions only
NOTE: If the classification meets the 4, then
the classification becomes valid then there is
no violation of the equal protection clause.

Q: Is there a valid classification based on

substantial distinction between those
holding appointive office and those

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
holding elective office in the government
that will justify differential treatment?

COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922; April 21,

1998)

Those holding appointive office

according to Section 66 of the OEC, the
moment that they filed their certificate of
candidacy they are ipso facto resigned but
those holding elective office, they are not
resigned. And so with this, we can infer
that there is such distinction. Namely: (1)
those holding elective office have their
mandate from the people whereas for
those holding appointive office, their
mandate came from the appointing
authority, (2) and their security of tenure
differs (Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
189698, Dec. 1, 2009)

NOTE: However, due to technology, the more

pervasive clause is no longer applicable for the
internet combines both print and broadcast
media.

A:

Q:
Is there a valid classification
based
on
substantial
distinction
between print media and broadcast
media that will justify differential
treatments?
A: Remember that the equal protection
clause does not guaranty absolute
equality, what it only guaranty is the
equality among equals. In here, the SC
held that there is such thing as a
substantial classification, namely: (1) the
print media makes use of newspaper
spaces which constitutes as their property
for profit and if the COMELEC requires that
they give newspaper spaces free of
charge, that constitutes unlawful taking of
a
private
property
without
just
compensation, on the other hand,
broadcast media uses airwaves in their
broadcast which is res commones, scarce
resources, and the use of such is regulated
by
the
state
under the National
Telecommunications Commission. And as
such, to use, airwaves, broadcast media
are given franchise by the government
which is merely a privilege under Section
11, Article 12 of the constitution. As such,
there is no unlawful taking of private
property in here because, after all, what
they make use of in their broadcast are
airwaves which they do not own. (2) And
in terms of reach, they also differ.
Broadcast media being more pervasive so
that under the freedom of expression, the
broadcast media is more regulated than
that of the print media. (Telebap v.

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

SECTION 2 RIGHT AGAINST

UNREASONABLE SEARCHERS AND
SEIZURES
Q: When do we consider a search or
arrest to be unreasonable and
therefore be prohibited?
A:
GR: If it is not covered by a search
warrant or a warrant of arrest.
XPN: Instances of valid warrantless
arrest and warrantless searches.
Q: What are the requisites for the
issuance of a valid search warrant or
warrant of arrest?
A:
a. Probable cause
b. To be determined personally by a judge
c. After examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses that may be produced
d. Particularly describing the place to be
searched, person to be arrested and
the things to be seized
NOTE: The search warrants and warrants of
arrest must always be issued in connection
with the specific offense; a general warrant will
not do because a general warrant partakes of
the nature of a fishing expedition for evidence
by the state. (Stonehill v. Diokno, 1967)
Q: What is the life span of a warrant?
A:
1. Search Warrant 10 days only
2. Warrant of Arrest No Expiration

a. TO BE DETERMINED PERSONALLY
BY A JUDGE
Q: Who may issue a warrant of arrest
or search warrant?
A: Only a judge. That is a judicial function.
Not even the prosecutor may issue a
search warrant or warrant of arrest.
NOTE: Under the 1973 Constitution, under
Martial Law, President Marcos had it amended,

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
making other officers as may be authorized by
law validly issue a search warrant or warrant of
arrest, making use of the ASSO (Arrest, Search
and Seizure Order) to arrest.
Consequently, under the case of Salazar v.
Achacoso, the provision of the Labor Code
provides that the Secretary of Labor may
validly issue a search warrant or a warrant of
arrest in illegal recruitment cases. Such
provision
had
now
been
declared
unconstitutional in that case for being
inconsistent to Sec. 2, Art. 3.

b. PROBABLE CAUSE
Q:
How
is
commenced?

criminal

case

A: It is commenced (Rule 110) by filing a

complaint in the prosecutors office filed
by the private offended party or their
immediate relatives, or in cases where
there are no private offended party the
law enforcement officers (PDEA, PNP). The
prosecutor will now conduct preliminary
investigation (Rule 112). In here, the
prosecutor determines probable cause for
the purpose of filing information in court.
The moment that the information is filed in
court, the proceeding is automatically
converted into a judicial proceeding
subject now to the control of the judge,
making it impossible even for the
secretary of justice to intervene (Crespo v.
Mogul). However, trial may not yet
proceed because the court has not yet
acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the accused. In here, the judge must issue
a warrant of arrest to obtain the person of
the accused through arresting him. Then
the accused may now pose a bail.
Arraignment (Rule 115) comes next, and
then trial will proceed (Speedy Trial Law
making it now mandatory for criminal
cases to be tried). A judgment be given,
either to acquit or to convict. If acquitted
then it would be final and executory. If to
convict, an appeal may be used within 15
days. Then upon appeal, it could be that
the conviction is reversed, of affirmed.
Once affirmed, the accused must not
serve his sentence.
Q: What are the 2 determinations of
probable cause as provided for in
criminal procedure?
A:

Leave no man behind!

BLACK HAWK DOWN

1. Preliminary investigation conducted by

the prosecutor (executive function)
2. Acquiring jurisdiction over the person
of the accused by issuing a warrant of
arrest by the judge (judicial function)
NOTE: A judge may not abdicate his
function to determine probable cause and
rely solely upon the prosecutor for as such,
he is required by Sec. 2 of the Bill of Rights.
(Soliven v. Makasiar)

Q: What is the difference between a

criminal
complaint
and
criminal
information?
A: A criminal complaint is the one filed in
the prosecutors office by the private
offended party or in some cases the police
in the form of a complaint affidavit
(sinumpaang salaysay). On the other
hand, criminal information is the one filed
in court by the prosecutor after conducting
preliminary investigation.
Q: What are the ways for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the accused?
A:
1. If
the
accused
voluntarily
surrenders.
2. If the accused is arrested.

c. AFTER EXAMINATION UNDER OATH

OR AFFIRMATION OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES
THAT MAY BE PRODUCED
NOTE: See the 2nd Mark Jimenez Case
(Government of USA v. Judge Purganan)
Q: Is a prior notice required before a
judge may issue a valid warrant of
arrest of an accused?
A: No, there is no mention of prior notice
and hearing, on the contrary it says there,
after the examination under oath and
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses that may be produced and NOT
that of the accused. Because indeed you
can just imagine, for example, the case of
the person is murder or rape with
homicide or kidnapping and then, before
the judge will issue a warrant of arrest a

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
hearing would still be needed, that was
never a requirement, notice and hearing
was NEVER a requirement before a judge
could issue a warrant of arrest under
Section 2 of the Bill of Rights. The SC said,
to determine the probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
constitution itself only requires the
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses that
may be produced and NOT of the accused;
there is no requirement to notify and hear
the accused before the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. In Web v. de Leon, the
Court categorically stated that the judge
was not supposed to conduct a notice and
hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest.

and circumstances that the person to be

arrested has committed the crime.

VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST

A: No, what the arresting officer or the

private person has is only personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances
which shows that a crime has been
actually committed.

Q: What are the instances of a valid

warrantless arrest?
A: (Section 5, Rule 113)
1. Arrest IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO (caught
in the act)
2. Arrest IN HOT PURSUIT
3. Arrest OF AN ESCAPEE

NOTE: Such arrest may be done not only by

a law enforcement officer but also by an
ordinary citizen (Citizens Arrest).

Q: What is meant by
FLAGRANTE DELICTO?

arrest

IN

A: When, in his presence, the person to be

arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense. In other words, the arresting
officer has personal knowledge of the
crime committed. (TIME ELEMENT IS NECESSARY)
Q: What are the instances of an IN
FLAGRANTE DELICTO arrest?
A:
1. Arrest as a result of by-bust operation
2. Arrest as a result of entrapment
operation
3. Raid of Night clubs
Q: What is meant by arrest IN HOT
PURSUIT?
A: When an offense has in fact just been
committed and he has probable cause to
believe on his part based on personal facts

Leave no man behind!

10

BLACK HAWK DOWN

NOTE: Arrest is valid even without a warrant if

the crimes are that of insurrection or rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and other crimes and offenses
committed in furtherance for such are in the
nature of a continuing crime. The arrest then
need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of the offenses which requires the
determination by judge of the existence of a
probable cause before the issuance of a
warrant. (Umil v. Ramos, July 9, 1990)

Q: Does the arresting officer/ private

person have personal knowledge of
the crime in an arrest in hot pursuit?

Q: What is meant by arrest of AN

ESCAPEE?
A: When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined
while the case is pending or has escaped
while being transferred from one confine
to another.
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH
Q: What are the instances of a valid
warrantless search?
A:
1. Search incidental to lawful arrest [MOST
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

COMMON]

Consented Search
Plain View
Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
Custom Searches
Search of moving vehicle
Check points
Arrest in Airport

Q: What is search incidental to a

lawful arrest?
A: While a contemporaneous search of a
person arrested may be effected to
discover dangerous weapons or proofs or
U

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
implements used in the commission of the
crime and which search may extend to the
area within his immediate control where
he might gain possession of a weapon or
evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest
must precede the search. The process
cannot be reversed.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest,
as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search, the
legality of the arrest is questioned in a
large majority of these cases, e.g.,
whether an arrest was merely used as a
pretext for conducting a search. In this
instance, the law requires that there be
first a lawful arrest before a search can be
made the process cannot be reversed.
(People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432,
June 17, 1999, En Banc [Davide, Jr., C.J.])
Q: What are the requisites of a
Search Incidental to a lawful arrest?
(Sec 13, Rule 126) (TAAS KAMAY)
A:
1. Arrest always precedes the search;
(Pp. v. Chua Ho San)
2. The precedent arrest must always be
lawful;
3. Search must be confined only within
the immediate vicinity of the place of
the arrest. (Nolasco v. Cruz Pao)
Q: What is the plain view doctrine?
A: Objects falling in plain view of an officer
who has a right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to seizure even
without search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence.
Q: What are the requisites of the
plain view doctrine?
1. The law enforcement officer in search
of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain
view is inadvertent;
3. It is immediately apparent to the
officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.

Leave no man behind!

11

BLACK HAWK DOWN

NOTE: It is clear that an object is in plain view

if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.
The difficulty arises when the object is inside a
closed container. Where the object seized was
inside a closed package, the object itself is not
in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant. However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
its contents are obvious to an observer, then
the contents are in plain view and may be
seized. In other words, if the package is such
that an experienced observer could infer from
its appearance that it contains the prohibited
article, then the article is deemed in plain view.
It must be immediately apparent to the police
that the items that they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure. (People v. Doria, 301 SCRA
668, Jan. 22, 1999, En Banc [Puno, J.])

Q: What is a stop-and-frisk search?

A: In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, a
stop-and-frisk
was
defined
as
the
vernacular designation of the right of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him, and pat him for
weapon(s):

Where a police officer observes an unusual

conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that
criminal activity may be afoot and that the
persons with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he
identified himself as a policeman and make
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
the initial stages of the encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself or others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the
outer clothing of such persons in an attempt
to discover weapons which might be used to
assault him. Such a search is a reasonable
search under the Fourth Amendment, and
any weapon seized may properly be
introduced in evidence against the person
from whom they were taken.

Q:
Is
establishment
of
checkpoint
justified?
A:
GR: No, because we are a republican and
democratic state.
XPN: In concurrence of the following
requisites:
1. The checkpoint must be preannounced.
2. The checkpoint must be stationary

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
3.

The search must be limited to visual

search and must not be an intrusive
search.

Q: Do the ordinary rights against

unreasonable searches and seizures
apply to searches conducted at the
airport pursuant to routine airport
security procedures?
A: Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure of
their persons or property to the public in a
manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation
society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in
airport
security
procedures.
With
increased concern over airplane hijacking
and terrorism has come increased security
at the nations airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely
pass through metal detectors; their carryon baggage as well as checked luggage is
routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should
these procedures suggest the presence of
suspicious objects, physical searches are
conducted to determine what the objects
are. There is little question that such
searches are reasonable, given their
minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the
safety interests involved, and the reduced
privacy expectations associated with
airline travel. Indeed, travellers are often
notified through airport public address
systems, signs, and notices in their airline
tickets that they are subject to search and,
if any prohibited materials or substances
are found, such would be subject to
seizure.
These announcements place passengers
on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections against warrantless searches
and seizures do not apply to routine
airport
procedures.
The
packs
of
methamphetamine hydrochloride having
thus been obtained through a valid
warrantless search, they are admissible in
evidence against the accused-appellant
herein. Corollarilly, her subsequent arrest,
although likewise without warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the
discovery and recovery of shabu in her
person in flagrante delicto. (People v. Leila
Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, Dec. 18, 2000,
2nd Div. [Mendoza])

Leave no man behind!

12

BLACK HAWK DOWN

SECTION 3 RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF

COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE
Q: What does Article 3(1) of the Bill of
Rights Provide?
A: The Privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court or when
public safety or requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law
Q: What does R.A. 4200
wiretapping Act) provides?

(Anti-

A: It shall be unlawful for any person, not

being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to
tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a Dictaphone
or dictograph or detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described: (Section 1)
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
participant or not in the act or acts penalized in
the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective date
of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law;
or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
partial, to any other person: Provided, That the
use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or
trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof,
shall not be covered by this prohibition.

Sec 4. Any communication or spoken

word,
or
the
existence,
contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of
the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
NOTE: Any information obtained in violation of
this act shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative
hearing
or
investigation.
(Salcedo-Ortaez v. CA, G.R. No. 110662,
August 4, 1994)

Q: Is taping a lecture a violation of

the Anti-Wiretapping Law?
A: No, because such is intended to be
made public.

NOTE: Love letters of a husbands paramour

cannot be used as evidence in court for such is
inadmissible because the husband has to right
of
privacy
in
communication
and
correspondence. (Zulueta v. CA)

Q: Is there a right to privacy?

A: Yes, as for provided in the case of Ople
v. Torres, for the very essence of such
right is the right to be let alone.
Q: What are the basic approaches
used by the SC in deciding on the
constitutionality
or
legality
of
measures infringing constitutional
guarantees?
A:
1. Dangerous Tendency Test
2. Clear and Present Danger Test
3. Balancing of Interest Approach
Q: What is meant by the Dangerous
Tendency Test?
A: For the state to justify the infringement
of the freedom of expression, it is enough
that it points out the danger producing
substantive evil the State is bound to
prevent or suppress. This Approach leans
heavily on the state.
Q: What is meant by the Clear and
Present Danger Test?
A: For the state to justify the infringement
of the freedom of expression or other
freedoms, it is not enough that it point out
the danger producing the substantive evil
the State is bound to prevent or suppress,
it must prove that such evil must be of a
clear and present danger.

Q: What is meant by the Balancing of

Interest Approach?
A:
The
courts
in
deciding
the
constitutionality of a certain law must
consider the two conflicting interest, the
States and the citizens.
SECTION 4 FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION
Q: What is meant by freedom of
expression?
A: No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of (1) speech, of (2) expression
and of the (3) press or right of the people
to peaceably (4) assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances
NOTE: Freedom of expression is said to be the
hallmark of a democratic regime, this is for the
reason that when a government becomes
undemocratic, the first victim of such
government is the freedom of expression.
Historically this had already been shown
through a dictatorship whose primary concern
is to control the press and the media. For in a
undemocratic government, there is only 1 view
that
prevails,
unlike
in
a
democratic
government where there is multiplicity of
views.

Q: What are the other sections that

should be taken together with
Section 4 (Freedom of Expression)?
A:
1. Section 8, Article 3 (Freedom of
Association) such provision is really a part
of the freedom of expression particularly
the freedom of assembly. Remember that
an assembly presupposes the existence of
an organized group.
2. Section 7, Article 3 (Right of the people to
information on matters of public concern)
because for a person to express himself
well, it presupposes that you have access
to information, especially on matters of
public concern. And remember that we are
a democratic and republican state and with
this we have as a general rule the
disclosure of information on matters of
public concern.
3. Section 28, Article 2 (the policy on
transparency)

Q: What is the extent of the freedom

of expression?

Leave no man behind!

13

BLACK HAWK DOWN

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A:
Then: Freedom from censorship or prior
restraint.

NOTE: This is how it evolved in the U.S as

well as here in the Philippines. The
protection does not extend freedom from
subsequent punishment. Thats why in the
past, even in the United States, when they
attained their freedom from Great Britain,
the freedom of expression is limited then
from freedom from censorship or prior
restraint. The protection did not extend to
freedom from subsequent punishment.

Now: Freedom from censorship and

prior restraint and it now includes
freedom from subsequent punishment.
NOTE: Because, what is the use of the
freedom of expression if in the end you will
be penalized. This is the reason why the
freedom now blossomed.

Q: Is the freedom of expression a

preferred right?
A: Yes, for it is afforded the amplest
protection among human rights in a
democratic republican state
NOTE: The exercise of such freedom must be
done together with utmost responsibility.

Q: What are the limitations on the

freedom of expression?
A:
1. Violent advocacy to overthrow the
government and its institutions and its
authorities (rebellion, sedition, etc.)
2.
Malign the reputation of a person
(libel, slander, defamation)
NOTE: The freedom of expression ends
when the right of a person begins.
3. Production of pornographic and off scene
materials (public morals)
4. To comment on pending cases in court
(contempt)

Q: What are the approaches adopted

by the court in dealing with the
freedom of expression cases?
A:
1. Dangerous Tendency Rule for as
long as the speech had a dangerous
tendency of producing the substantive
evil, which the state is bound to
prevent or suppress, even if that
substantive evil did not take place at

Leave no man behind!

14

BLACK HAWK DOWN

all later on, the curtailment and

suppression
of
the
freedom
of
expression is now justified. This rule
leans heavily in favor of state power, in
favor of public order and public peace
as against freedom of expression. But
then later on, in the Philippines even in
the USA, they have to give in to a more
libertarian rule known as the clear and
present danger rule. (abandoned)
E.g.: In the past, if somebody in a
mass assembly or a public rally
shouted,
maghimagsik,
mag
rebolusyon tayo, ibagsak ang corrupt
at bulok na sistema, makibaka wag
matakot, then you could already be
held liable and be imprisoned, this
was then justified due to the
dangerous tendency rule. This is for,
your speech is capable of producing
the substantive evil (revolution)
which the state is bound to prevent o
repress
2. Clear and Present Danger Rule
(Holmesian
Rule)

for
the
government to justify the curtailment
and suppression of the freedom of
expression, it is not enough for the
government
to
point
out
the
substantive evil which the state is duty
bound to prevent or suppress but the
substantive evil must be a clear and
present danger type. (the more
libertarian rule formulated by Justice
Holmes as backed up by Justice
Brandies )
NOTE: we cannot expect people holding
rallies to use polite words, so they cannot
be stopped under this doctrine for there is
no clear and present danger.
E.g.: When you are inside a movie house
and then you shouted fire, fire you will be
automatically arrested.

3. Balancing of Interest Approach The

courts
in
deciding
the
constitutionality of a certain law must
consider the two conflicting interest,
the States and the citizens.

SANTO
TOMAS
Fa c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o

N I V E R S I T Y O F