Notes On Consti2

CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
I. THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE

1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation
They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of government and without them no
government can exist.
Similarities, Distinctions, and Limitation
Similarities:
they are inherent in the State

they are necessary and indispensable
they are methods by which the State interferes with private rights
they presuppose an equivalent compensation
they are exercised primarily by the legislature
Differences:
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

As to regulation regulates both liberty regulates property regulates
and property rights only property rights
only
As to who may only the government government and only the
exercise some private government
entities
As to the destroyed because it is -wholesome -wholesome
property taken noxious or intended for -taken for a public -taken for a
noxious purpose use or purpose public use or
purpose
As to intangible altruistic full and fair protection and
Compensation feeling that the person equivalent of the public
has contributed to the property improvements
general welfare expropriated for the taxes
paid
Limitations:
(a) Bill of Rights
A. POLICE POWER
Police Power is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property.
Justification of existence:
Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law;
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must use his own property so as not to injure
another
Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian
Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts (police
power prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate
Who may exercise Police Power?
(a) the Legislature (inherent)

(b) President (by delegation)
(c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by delegation)
(e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute general welfare clause of RA 7160)
Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no police power.
(MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoc.)
Tests (Limitations):
(a) Lawful subject interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of police power
(b) Lawful means the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:
express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)

within territorial limits (for LGU's)
must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta)
for municipal ordinances -
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute

2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy
In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, police
power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers
extending as it does to all great public needs.
[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of their business or a
particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of police power. .. [P]ersons
licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest be affected by the
exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the disadvantages which
may result from the exercise of that power.
Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees even to prohibitive
levels, if public interest dictates so, without any constitutional violations.
Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise of police power and
the right to exact fees is may be implied from that power to regulate. In setting the fees,
municipal corporations are given wider discretion in this class of licenses (than for licenses
issued to regular business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability of
imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful enterprises.
In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of carabao under the
assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation and disposal without court hearing is a
violation of due process hence it is an invalid exercise of police power.
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and is restrained by due
process, which requires notice and hearing
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process requirement
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:
No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute ban on movement of
carabeef) and purpose sought to be achieved (conservation of carabao for general
welfare)
Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or opportunity to be heard in
proper court
B. EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent Domain is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just compensation, to
forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to public use.
Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.
Who may Exercise?
1. The Congress (inherent)

2. President
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority)
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)
Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity
Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity

public right private right vested in every
arises from the laws of individual with which the right of
society and is vested in the state or state necessity has nothing
state or grantee, acting to do
under the right and power of comes under the right of necessity,
the state or benefit of the of self-preservation
state arises under the laws of society or
society itself
cannot require the conversion of the
property taken to public use, nor is
there any need for the payment of
just compensation
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.
Requisites of Eminent Domain:
1. Necessity of exercise
2. Private property
3. Taking
4. Public use
5. Just compensation
1. Necessity of Exercise
genuine necessity, and

must be of public character
When exercised by legislature political question
When exercised by a delegate justiciable question
determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking; and (c) public use
character
2. Private Property
General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation
Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the
right to bring an action to recover debt, money or thing)
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting
under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community)
3. Taking
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
(a) expropriator must enter a private property

(b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
(c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
(d) entry is for public use
(e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
if taking is under police power, it is not compensable
Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :
Police Power Eminent Domain

the prejudice suffered by the the individual suffers more than
individual property owner is his aliquot part of the damages,
shared in common with the i.e. a special injury above that
rest of the community sustained by the rest of the
community
In Amigable v. Cuenca, where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner
need not file a claim for just compensation with the Commission of Audit; he may go directly to
the court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of
its immunity from suit.
In City Government v. Ericta, an ordinance of Quezon City, under the guise of exercising
police power, prescribed that at least 6% of the total area of memorial parks must be
developed and set aside for the burial of paupers. The Court held that such ordinance is not
an exercise of police power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to satisfy
the Constitution, there must be compensation.
4. Public Use
Public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including both direct
or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution understand public use in a
broad sense as meaning public welfare. That includes development of tourism.
5. Just Compensation
Just compensation is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the measure
of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. It is not market value
per se. (Epza v. Dulay)
Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential damages, if

any + consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation provided
consequential benefits does not exceed consequential damages
Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time
Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian

Reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with a revolutionary
kind of expropriation).
Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.
Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of taking or filing of the
complaint, whichever comes first
Entitlement of interest:
General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art. 2209,
CC)
Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during
which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the
expropriator.
Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to
demand payment
Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the
finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property
In De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding against the
property of petitioner was arbitrary and cannot receive judicial approval. There was another
area where the expansion of EDSA can be undertaken, which will cost government less, affect
lesser homeowners, etc.
But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated. Apparently, BP 340,
which called for the taking of the property, was enacted after the 1 st De Knecht case. De
Knecht argued that there was already a law of the case, which should not be disturbed.
Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is equally true that there is
constitutional grant given to the State to take private property upon payment of just
compensation. Such expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the [State] not only by
voluntary negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or by
legislation.
The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own assessment of the
circumstances that prevailed after the decision as well as supervening events and reaching a
conclusion as to the propriety of undertaking the appropriation of the De Knecht property.
In the case Republic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the reconnection of
telephone lines of the Republic.
No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of to impose only a burden
upon the owner of condemned property without loss of title or possession for public use
subject to just compensation
Case highlights that even services may be subjected to eminent domain
In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, the Court said that [T]he very
foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity
must be of public character.
In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula for arriving at just
compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispense with the need to appoint commissioners
to determine just compensation. The Court held that those decrees are unconstitutional and
void for they constitute impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
In Republic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification should only have prospective
effect. The Court agreed. Thus under the operative fact doctrine, the effect of the invalidated
law was allowed to affect transactions completed before the declaration of nullity.
C. POWER OF TAXATION
Power of Taxation is a method by which contributions are exacted from persons and property for
the support of government and for all public needs.
Obligation to pay taxes is a duty
Taxes vs Licenses
Tax License
to raise for regulatory purpose only
revenues justified under police power
amount of fees required is usually limited to the
cost of regulation
Scope
all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and
tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned
by persons domiciled therein
Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
(1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect ultimately
prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare
Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy
where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues
Who May Exercise
1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)

2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti])
3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])
Limitations of Taxation:
1. Due Process of Law

2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose
1. Due Process
Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police
power
Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. However, where the tax to be
collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be
notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of the
property.
2. Equal Protection
embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.)
Uniformity persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate
Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class
Equitable taxation based on the capacity to pay
Equality in taxation tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property
Progressive system of taxation the rate increases as the tax base increases
3. Public Purpose
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation
when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction during
the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it results in a
violation of the equal protection clause.
Tax Exemptions may either be:

constitutional
Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually, directly and
exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes entitled to exemption
statutory- discretion of legislature
II. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Bill of Rights set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the
enjoyment of those rights.
Significance of the Bill of Rights
Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that
there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property which governmental power may not
touch.
Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.
Classification of Rights
1. Political Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or indirect
participation in the establishment or administration of the government;
2. Civil Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for
the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of happiness;
3. Social and Economic Rights; and,
4. Human Rights.
A. DUE PROCESS
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from
adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice
embodiment of sporting idea on fair play
guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government
Protection of Person
Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property
because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature
Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)
connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property

not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.
When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the action
is valid.
1. Life
It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against physical
harm. The right to life is the right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of
living.
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
3. Property
anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract
all things within the commerce of man
However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property.
If created by statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time.
Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will
Aspects of Due Process
1. Substantive Due Process

2. Procedural Due Process
As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.
As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government

agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of
procedural fairness.
Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
person to his life, liberty or property
Requisites:
(a) Lawful Subject

(b) Lawful Means
Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of
government.
1. Judicial Due Process
Requisites:
(a) Impartial and Competent Court
(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property
(c) Hearing
not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough
right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable
part of due process
the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing
Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process:
abatement of nuisance per se

preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
statutory presumptions
(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)
2. Administrative Due Process
Requisites:
(a) Right to a hearing
(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(c) Decision must have something to support itself
(d) Evidence must be Substantial

(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of
the facts and law of the controversy
(g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence,

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects:
it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid; and,
it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process
because the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not uncertain and void merely
because general terms are used or because it employed terms that were not defined. The Anti-
Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which it purports to punish,
giving the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively interpose a
defense against on his behalf.
A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception
violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the
Bill of Rights.
Although the Bill of Rights does not mention privacy the Court ruled that that the right was
to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. The First Amendment
has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental
intrusion.
In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New York for
wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week.
The statute allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or agree to work more
than 10 hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes. The statute is unconstitutional.
The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free contract between employer and
employee by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground
for doing so.
The general right to make a contract in relation to ones business is a liberty protected by the 14 th
amendment.
The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights to prevent the individual
from making certain kinds of contracts in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health,
morals and general welfare of the society. In this instance, the 14 th amendment cannot interfere.
The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the states interference
with rights to labor and contract.
Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and the end itself must be
appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right
of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.
Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an administrative court
which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between
employers and employees. National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT vs.
Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs. NLRC) and school tribunals
(Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des
Moines Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. It is a question
of whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-judicial function that makes it bound by
the due process clause. (Judicial function is synonymous to judicial power which is the
authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally
enforceable and demandable or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to a
matter in controversy).
In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings
which essentially exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function. These are:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in
support thereof
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) The decision must have something to support itself
(4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner
that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.
B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the
Person. The equality it guarantees is legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all
persons before the law.
embraced in the concept of due process
embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue favoritism
or hostility from the government
Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general
Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice
Substantive Equality all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Equality in enforcement of the law law be enforced and applied equally
Requisites of Valid Classification:
(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only

must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class

both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the

equal protection clause because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the
COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more than four
years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of election officers in order to
ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with
the people of their place of assignment.
In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central
by name. Ormos Sugar Central is the only sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that
such ordinance is not valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central
which alone comes under the ordinance.
C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 2, Art. III. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 2, Art. III deals with tangibles; embodies the castle doctrine (a man's house is his
castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the
domain and privacy of his own home.)
This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with enforcement of the law. It does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches
and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
Section 3, Art. III. (1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 3 (1), Art. III deals with intangibles
Section 3 (2), Art. III Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree)
Exclusionary Rule evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)
available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be required to
open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power of taxation
The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)
General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.
Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose of
carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law
Valid Warrantless Searches
[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]
1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) for dangerous weapons or
anything that may have been used or constitute in the commission of an offense
Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest
2. searches of moving vehicles
In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was
stopped and searched. The motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour
nor had the searching officers received any confidential information about the car. The
Court held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle as
there was no probable cause.
3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view
Requisites:
1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent
4. there is no further search
4. enforcement of customs law
5. consented searches
6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)
In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: (W)here a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that
criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed
and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes 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 and 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.
Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (Malacat)
7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry
8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations
Valid Warrantless Arrest
1. in flagrante delicto
2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment
Requisites of a valid warrant
Arrest Warrant Search Warrant

1. Probable Such facts and Such facts and circumstances
Cause circumstances which would which would lead a reasonably
lead a reasonably prudent prudent man to believe that an
must refer to man to believe that an offense has been committed
one (1) specific offense has been committed and the objects sought in the
offense and the person sought to be connection of the offense are in
arrested had committed it the place sought to be searched
2. Personal The judge personally The judge must personally
determination determines the existence of examine in the form of
of probable probable cause; it is not searching questions and
cause by the necessary that he should answers...
judge personally examine the in writing and under oath...
complainant and his the complainants and his
witnesses (Soliven vs witnesses...
Makasiar) on facts personally known to
them...
Procedure: and attach to the record their
sworn statements and affidavits.
(1) personally evaluate the (Silva vs Presiding Judge)
fiscal's report, or
(2) if [1] is insufficient,

disregard it and require the
submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses
Preliminary inquiry (task of

the judge) determination of
probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of arrest
Preliminary investigation
proper (task of the
prosecutor) ascertainment
whether the offender should
be held for trial or be
released
3. After Not merely routinary but must Not merely routinary but must
examination be probing and exhaustive be probing and exhaustive
under oath or
affirmation of
the
complainant
and the
witnesses he
may produce
4.Particularity General Rule: it must General Rule: when the
of description contain the name/s of the description therein is as specific
persons to be arrested as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow.
Exception: if there is some
descriptio personae which Exception: when no other more
will enable the officer to accurate and detailed
identify the accused description could have been
given.
In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those
which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the case.
Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not constitute unreasonable
searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when
there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a
moving vehicle.
Probable Cause facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in
themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them.
In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine
Times:... we found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the
government of the Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit does not establish probable
cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.
In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the
basis of a broad statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. is in possession of printing
equipment and other paraphernalia... used as means of committing the offense of subversion.
The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to establish probable cause. It is a mere
conclusion of law unsupported by particulars.
The Court also held that the search warrant description has the sweeping tenor making the
document a general warrant. The search warrant particularly states:all printing equipment,
typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...
It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the
search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the
person sought to be searched.
In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of personally in the search
and seizure clause. It stated that in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of
probable cause, what is required is personal determination and not personal examination.
In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest cannot rely solely on
the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that probable cause exists. The judge
must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all
other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is insufficient for it
amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases: Book of
accounts, financial records, vouchers...and other documents showing all business
transactions....
The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained
thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed by third parties.
D. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Section 12, Art. III.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
called the Miranda Doctrine (Miranda vs Arizona)
Miranda Doctrine prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be
warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence
against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently.
Purpose of the Doctrine
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a criminal defendant's
privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by
the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right against
compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
incrimination.
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine
(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present
when being questioned; and
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.
Custodial investigation defined
Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and
direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom
the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.
Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting
officer for any violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:
(a) Voluntary
(b) With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel
Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and
contemplates effective communication which results in the subject understanding
what is conveyed. (People v. Agustin)
(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will
be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him
(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited
(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as

evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived

[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
(a) Right to remain silent

(b) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to counsel
Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for postponement.
He must be provided with counsel de oficio.
RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board of Claims under
DOJ
Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk
officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the police
officer to whom the admission was made, as part of the res gestae.
In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived. The Constitution says;
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. In localities
where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place where there is one.
Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges are filed against the
accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play).
In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. What the Constitution
prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused,
but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an accused may
be validly compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or
replaced, or to move his body to enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running
afould of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.
E. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not
be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
Bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond

(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Death, when evidence of
guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.
In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable bu sufficient sureties.
One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself to
the jurisdiction of the court, as in the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was confined
in a hospital communicated his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail
The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail
(a) Ability to post bail
(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law
(d) Character and reputation of the accused
(e) Health of the accused
(f) Strength of the evidence
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds

(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail
(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law.
In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas nevertheless agreed to
remain in legal custody during the pendency of the trial of his criminal case. The Court held that
he does not have the right to bail, because bu his act he has waived his right.
(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and extradition
proceedings.
Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.
In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail. It is
because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary
right to bear arms and can therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal
protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those who are equally situated.
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.
In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, since
bail is available only in criminal proceedings, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not
entitled to a bail. He should apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried.
F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
The Rights of the Accused Include
1. Criminal due process;

2. Presumption of innocence;
3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence;
and
8. trial in absentia
1. Criminal Due Process
Criminal process includes
a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges

b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
c) Period of trial
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and the
applicable statutes (example of statutory right of the accused: right to Preliminary
investigation)
Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under circumstances as would
prevent the accused from freely making his defense or the judge from freely arriving at his
decision.
There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is impleaded for
violation of such law.
There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there is denial thereof.
2. Presumption of Innocence
Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution.
Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of the defense
The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the experience of

human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt, as the wicked flee
when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.)
The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational connection
between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from
proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. Cooley
No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a statement of
any sort.
In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election, section 4 of BP Blg.

52 says that the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before civil court or
military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact
(disqualification). The Court held that this provision violates the guarantee of presumption of
innocence. Although filing of charges is only prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the
proximity of elections and consequent risk of not having time to rebut the prima facie evidence
already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even before trial.
Equipoise Rule evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life of the
accused
Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under
investigation for the commission of a crime.
This is not subject to waiver.
Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.
If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:
(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de oficio must be
appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give him a reasonable
time to get one.
4. Nature and Cause of Accusation
Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make
his defenses;
(2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same cause;
(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.
The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The real nature of the
crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is not determined
based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law
allegedly violated.)
If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused cannot be
convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with
respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him and
to due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished
and hence, shall be avoided.
In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for Vagueness Doctrine merely
requires a reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical
exactitude.
5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation
(a) Time expired from the filing of the information

(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to an acquittal and can be
used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made
with the consent of the accused
Remedy if the Right is Violated
(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
Speedy trial -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon him
Impartial trial the accused is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is an
element of due process.
Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the
accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is offensive to decency or public morals,
the public may be excluded.
The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on
Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto.
The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to promulgation of sentence.
General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up.
However, the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification
purposes.
Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the person
charged with the offense and named in the information, and that any time a witness refers
to a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.
Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been arraigned.
There is also Promulgation in Absentia
While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment, the absence of his
counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity
The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture
of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as this
is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of dying declarations

(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
With respect to child testimony
Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for being
hearsay.
If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed, his direct
testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material points of his direct testimony
had been covered on cross.
The right to confrontation may be waived.
7. Compulsory Process
The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces
tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witness and the production of evidence
that he may need for his defense.
Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court.
There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for conditional examination,
provided the expected testimony is material of any witness under circumstances that would
make him unavailable from attending the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
G. HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, Art. III. 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.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is a written order issued by a court, directed to a person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place with the day and
cause of his caption and detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus the right to have an immediate determination of the
legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
The President may suspend the privilege:
(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion

(2) when public safety requires it.
Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been judicially adjudged to
be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)
The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention

To secure the detainees release
The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be acted upon
immediately
When available (enumeration not exclusive)
restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint
may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:

1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of the person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as to the excess.
May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto
When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar)
Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was subsequently meted
out to another person convicted of the same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of Prisons)
Unlawful denial of bail
When not available (enumeration not exclusive)
the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by the
court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) persons could not be found; remedy is to refer the
matter to Commission on Human Rights
Procedure
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege

The President
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within
forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be
set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, 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, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from
its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function,
nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
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.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be
judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire into the factual basis of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is written in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
H. WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC

(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right
to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or
entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the
aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known
member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file
similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial
Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or
with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The
writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such
court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be returnable
before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any
justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of the docket and other
lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it
immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act
or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by
an assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation
is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and
addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct
of the investigation, together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts
of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or
omission; and
6. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately
order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under
the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his
or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later
than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.
SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the
writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the
court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or
by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return
of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted
service shall apply.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall
file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain
the following:
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation
the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or
omission against the aggrieved party; and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions
that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person
identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as
any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance;
and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution
of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised in the return,
otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10. Memorandum;
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory
orders or interim relief orders; and
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition
against any interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice
or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice
or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of
obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas
corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court,
justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may
order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be
protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of
keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution
referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend temporary
protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that
may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit
entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the
information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit
of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the
aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and
the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions
to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date
of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or
electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to
produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the
information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to
determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of
all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer
the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to
accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion of the respondent and
after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who refuses to make a
return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process
or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall establish their
claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required
by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive
it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or
witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall, motu proprio or
upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice
to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived
cases under this Rule not later than the first week of January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal,
civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of
amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the
writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs
in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
recognized and protected by the Constitution.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily
insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts.
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its publication in three
(3) newspapers of general circulation.
I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES
Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases
Speedy trial Speedy disposition of cases

Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases (All phases)
Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings
Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

SC: 24 months from submission
All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
All other lower courts: 3 months
Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A)

60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution
Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated
1. Length of delay
2. Reason of delay
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
4. Prejudice caused by delay
Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case:

Dismissal through mandamus
J. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Based on:
1. Humanitarian reasons it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers,
from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him;
2. Practical reasons a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself

for his own protection
Applicable to:
Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or

legislative investigations
Transactional Immunity Statute testimony of any person or whose possession of documents or

other evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted is
immune from criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.
Use and Fruit Immunity Statute prohibits the use of the witness' compelled testimony and its fruit
in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled
testimony relates.
May be Claimed by:
1. Accused at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his
interrogation will be to incriminate him
2. Witness only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way
of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question to be put to him
- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:

a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may
tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no
longer be prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute
Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial powers
of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them.
Scope:
(1) Testimonial Compulsion
In Villaflor v. Summers, since the kernel of the privilege was the prohibition of testimonial
compulsion, the Court was willing to compel a pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit
to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy. Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a
violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of accounts are to be
examined in the exercise of police power and power of taxation.
What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the
witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions compelled
from the witness.
The right does not prohibit the examination of the body of the accused or the use of
findings with respect to his body as physical evidence. Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused
would not violate the right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the
handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification.
The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession which
might tend to incriminate him. However, a third person in custody of the document may be
compelled to produce it.
Right May be Waived:
- Either:
a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and unequivocal and
intelligently and willingly made.
Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
J. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment
for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Involuntary Servitude the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment,
and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
Involuntary Servitude Includes
(1) Slavery civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of
another;
(2) 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, real or pretended, against his
will
General Rule
No involuntary service in any form shall exist.
Exceptions
1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense (Sec. 4, Art. II)
3. Naval enlistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the crew would not
desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit new hands to continue the voyage
(Robertson vs Baldwin)
4. Posse comitatus in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law, the authorities
might command all male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya)
5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan ng

Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)
6. Patria Potestas unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so long as they
are under parental power and to observe respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311,
Civil Code)
US vs An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town
Pompeya may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the
public and the preservation of peace and good order is
constitutional. It was enacted in the exercise of the police power of
the state and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on
involuntary servitude.
Pollock No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from
vs compulsory service, and no state can make the quitting of work any
Williams component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for
holding unwilling persons to labor.
K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner

or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions
shall be dealt with by law.
When is a penalty cruel, degrading and inhuman?
(1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Ex. Being drawn and
quartered.
(2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex. Being tarred and
feathered, then paraded throughout town.
Standards Used
(1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings.
(2) It must not be applied arbitrarily.
(3) It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
(4) It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe
punishment would.
Excessive Fine
A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the offense.
Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the punishment is
attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman.
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
L. NON IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
For humanitarian reasons an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their
incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because of their misfortune of being
poor
Debt any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting in any liability to pay
in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt
If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary
imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu.
A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:
1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and

2. The accused has been duly convicted.
POLL TAX
General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.

Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax
Poll tax a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his
property or occupation.
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its non-payment maybe
validly punished with imprisonment.
M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Double jeopardy when a person was charged with an offense and the case was terminated by
acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the
same or identical offense.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1. valid complaint or information

2. filed before a competent court
3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.
Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy
(1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense (1st sentence
of Section 21)
(2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd sentence of Sec. 21)
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.

(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction
(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
(d) After the person is arraigned
(e) Such person enters a valid plea.
When does jeopardy NOT attach:

(a) If information does not charge any offense
(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete self-defense, and the court
thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused.
(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
1) Acquittal
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
4) Dismissal on the merits.
Examples of termination of jeopardy:

(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts to an acquittal.
(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits.
(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the
accused.
(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an acquittal.
When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:

(a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is based on violation of the right
to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.
(b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits
(c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.
(d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.
(e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.
What are considered to be the SAME OFFENSE:
(a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases.
(b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense.
(c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.
Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the
same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply.
Same Act
Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same.
For there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary that the offense be the same.
Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where:
(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge.
(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the
filing of the former information.
(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the
offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered
because of the prosecutions incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused

If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy. The
whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase the
penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.
In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of
the right to speedy trial. Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence,
reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy.
N. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when
done, criminal, and punishes such action.
(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed.
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law
annexed to the crime when it was committed.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law required
at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the accused.
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty
or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful.
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(a) Must refer to criminal matters

(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application
In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law prohibits
retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law.... The contention that the new
law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is incorrect because the right to appeal is not a
natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to
matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of
ex post facto law.
In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of evidence or mode of
trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v. Ohio) unless the changes operate only
in limited and unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the accused.
In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for estafa on
May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On March 16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed authorizing
suspension of public officers against whom an information may be pending at any stage. On
July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 24 of the
Revised Penal Code that suspension of an officer during trial shall not be considered a penalty.
The suspension in the case is merely a preventive and not a penal measure which therefore
does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. If the punishment
be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. (Cummings v. Missouri)
(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)
Elements of Bill of Attainder
1. There must be a law.

2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a
group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.
O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Section 3(1), Art. III. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
1. letters
2. messages
3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes
Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed
1. Upon lawful order of the court, or

2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based upon a government
official's assessment that public safety and order demand such intrusion.
Public Order and Safety the security of human lives, liberty, and property against the activities of
invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.
RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties for specific violations of
private communication. Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized taps, under specific
conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.
P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the government has the
burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308 in this case) is justified by some compelling
state interest and that it is narrowly drawn.
In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into
individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that
enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused.
Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman
chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable, that is, potentially able to live
outside the mother's womb.
(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but the Court has
recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution. The Court deemed abortion a
fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws
attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain fundamental
rights are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be
justified only by a compelling state interest.
(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a womans decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy. But a womans right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever
time, in whatever way and for whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While
recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that some state regulation
in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A state may properly assert important interests
in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.
Q. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC full text), which
was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase
or modify substantive rights.
Constitutional Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three (3) newspapers of
general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
General rule: The aggrieved party.
Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be
filed by:
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
Where can the petition be filed?
(1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction
over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of
the petitioner.
(2) Supreme Court;
(3) Court of Appeals; or
(4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices.
No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the
indigent shall be docketed and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent
submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.
The verified written petition shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty
or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge,
in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction
of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may
include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ
if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and
cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance; or, in case of urgent necessity, the justice
or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve
it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later
than ten (10) work days from the date of its issuance.
A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who
refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without
prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ
cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits within five
(5) work days from service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court
for justifiable reasons.
Contents of Return
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communication,
confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information subject of
the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or information,
and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or
information; and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court
in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers when the respondent
invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question shall compromise
national security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged to the public
due to its nature or privileged character.
The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for
a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations and admissions from the parties.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officer as may be
designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) work days.
When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but
the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure
under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of
habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the
procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice System complemented
several writs used in the Philippines. These writs which protect the rights of the individual
against the state are as follows:
The Writ of Habeas Corpus a writ ordering a person who detained another to
produce the body and bring it before a judge or court. Its purpose is to determine
whether the detention is lawful or not;
The Writ of Mandamus a writ ordering a governmental agency to perform a

ministerial function;
The Writ of Prohibition a writ ordering a person to prohibit the commission of an

illegal act;
The Writ of Certiorari a writ ordering a person to correct an erroneous act

committed with grave abuse of discretion; and
The Writ of Amparo a writ designed to protect the most basic right of a human
being. These are the right to life, liberty and security guaranteed by the
Constitution.
R. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
Section 7, Art. III. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his government so he
can express his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently.
Rights Guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas, Philippine Constitution, p.
85).
Limitations: As may be provided by law
Valmonte v The people have a right to access official records but they cant
Belmonte compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts,
1989 summaries and the like, such not being based on a demandable
legal right.
Then right to privacy belongs to the individual and must be

invoked by the individual. A public agency like the GSIS cannot
invoke the right to privacy.
Baldoza v Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a
Dimaano judge may regulate the manner in which persons desiring to
1976 inspect, examine or copy records in his office, may exercise their
rights.
Legaspi v Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to
Civil Service information on matters of public concern.
Commission What matters constitute public concern should be determined
1987 by the court on a case to case basis.
Chavez v Public concern (def.) writings coming into the hands of public
PCGG officers in connection with their official functions
1998 Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.
Privileged communication: (1) national security, (2) trade
secrets, (3) criminal matters pending in court,
Echegaray SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to
case the convict was unconstitutional.
S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of
all liberty. (Wendell Philips)
Scope
Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the discussion of matters
affecting the public interest. Purely private interest matters do not come within the guaranty
(invasion of privacy is not sanctioned by the Constitution).
covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view. (One of the functions
of this freedom is to invite dispute US Supreme Court; I may not agree with what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire)
The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant not only to protect
the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)
Importance
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only
ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
Modes of Expression
(a) Oral and written language

(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)
Elements of Freedom of Expression
(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship
Section 4, Art. III. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
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.
Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually applying his own
subjective standards in determining the good and the not. Such is anathema in a free society.
In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of prior restraint is not
absolute, although any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption
against its constitutionality.
In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of prior restraint is enumerated by the
Court, thus: When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such
a hindrance to its effort .... No one would question but that government might prevent actual
obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of sailing dates of transports or the
number or location of troops.... The security of the community life may be protected against
incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.
In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says that surveys affecting
national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys
affecting local candidates shall not be published seven days before an election. The provision
is challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as prior restraint, the
rule is presumed to be invalid. The power of the Comelec over media franchises is limited to
ensuring equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply as well as to reasonable rates
of charges for the use of media facilities for public information and forums among candidates.
Here the prohibition of speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule pass the
O'Brien test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses one type of expression
while allowing other types such as editorials, etc. and (2) the restriction is greater than what is
needed to protect government interest because the interest can be protected by narrower
restriction such as subsequent punishment.
In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the Court held that the propriety
of the Estrada trial involves the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the
press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the
accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the possibility of losing not only the
precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain
that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment...
The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection of core speech,
i.e., speech which communicates political, social or religious ideas. Commercial speech,
however, does not.
Grosjean vs There need not be total suppression; even restriction of

American circulation constitutes censorship
Press Co.
Burgos vs the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of
Chief of Staff Metropolitan Mail and We Forum by military authorities,
resulting in the discontinuance of publication of the
newspapers, was held to be prior restraint
Mutuc vs the COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped jingles in
COMELEC the mobile units used in the campaign was held to be
unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of censorship
Sanidad vs the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against radio
COMELEC commentators or newspaper columnists from commenting on
the issues involved in the scheduled plebiscite on the organic
law creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression
But...
Gonzales vs the Court upheld the validity of the law which prohibited, except
COMELEC during the prescribed election period, the making of speeches,
announcements or commentaries for or against the election of
any party or candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate preoccupation of the people
with politics tended toward the neglect of the other serious
needs of the nation and the pollution of its suffrages.
Iglesia ni Cristo The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television
vs CA (BRMPT) has the authority to review the petitioner's television
program.
However, the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion when
it gave an X-rating to the TV program on the ground of
attacks against another religion. Such a classification can be
justified only if there is a showing that the tv program would
create a clear and present danger of an evil which the State
ought to prevent.
Primicias vs The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not
Fugosos absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose
indicated.
National Press the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646,
Club vs which prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or
COMELEC to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This was
held to be within the power of the COMELEC to supervise the
enjoyment or utilization of franchises for the operation of media
of communication and information, for the purpose of ensuring
equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, as
well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of
such media facilities.
Osmea vs SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate exercise of
COMELEC police power. The regulation is unrelated to the suppression of
speech, as any restriction on freedom of expression
occasioned thereby is only incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PPI vs
COMELEC, because in the latter, SC simply said that
COMELEC cannot procure print space without paying just
compensation.
Adiong vs COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting of decals, and
COMELEC stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles was
declared unconstitutional for infringmenet of freedom of
expression.
Besides, the constitutional objective of giving the rich and poor
candidates' equal opportunity to inform the electorate is not
violated by the posting of decals and stickers on cars and other
vehicles.
Overbreadth doctrine = prohibits the government from
achieving its purpose by means that weep unnecessarily
broadly, reaching constitutionally protected as well as
unprotected activity; the government has gone too far; its
legitimate interest can be satisfied without reaching so broadly
into the area of protected freedom.
Gonzales vs petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as for
katigbak adults only. the petition was dismissed because the Board did
not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Freedom From Subsequent Punishment
Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that he might be held to
account for his speech, or that he might be provoking the vengeance of the officials he may
have criticized.
Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom of expression does not
cover ideas offensive to public order)
Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute
General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he has
written
Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion
of rights of others, the school has the right to discipline its students (in such a case, it may expel or
suspend the student)
Tests of valid governmental interference

(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him) :
1. Clear and present danger rule

2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
3. Balance of interest test
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule when words are used in such circumstance and of such nature
as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a
right to prevent. (As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States)
Clear causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the utterance
Present time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger must not only be probable but
also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec)
In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned exit polls in the exercise of its authority to
regulate the holders of media franchises during the lection period. It contends that an exit poll
has the tendency to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting interviewees....
However, the Court said that exit polls constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech
and of the press. Hence, the Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of promoting clean,
honest, orderly and credible elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and present danger
rule because the evils envisioned are merely speculative.
Terminiello vs City of (speech inside an auditorium with 800

Chicago persons)
speech is often provocative and challenging.
hence, fighting words are not sufficient to
convict a person absent a clear and present
danger of a serious substantive evil
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only reasonably
regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated.
the condition of Manila at that time did not
justify the mayor's fears. there was no clear
and present danger.
decided in 1947
Navarro vs Villegas (compare with Primicias case)
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of
refusing to issue a permit enabling students to
hold a public rally. Mayor feared the rally would
result to public disorder.
- decided in 1970
Reyes vs Bagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was
invalid as there was no showing of the
probability of a clear and present danger of an
evil that might arise as a result of the meeting.
The burden of proving such eventually rests on
the Mayor.
2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil
which the State has the right to prevent.(Cabansag v. Fernandez)
Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. If believed, it is acted on
unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its
birth.
Bayan vs Executive (f) the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response Policy

Secretary Ermita is null and void. Respondents are enjoined
from using it and to strictly observe the
requirements of maximum tolerance.
Cabansag vs Fernandez It is not necessary that some definite or
immediate acts of force or violence be
advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
advocated in general terms.
A mere tendency toward the evil was enough.
People vs Perez Accused declared: The Filipinos like myself
must use bolos for cutting off (Governor-
General) Wood's head for having recommended
a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our
independence.
He was sentenced to jail.
3. Balance of Interest Test when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and
the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is
to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the
circumstances presented. (American Communications Association v. Douds)
CLEAR AND DANGEROUS BALANCE OF INTEREST

PRESENT DANGER TENDENCY RULE RULE
RULE
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved in the
light of the peculiar
circumstances obtaining in
each particular case
In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all the more the utmost respect
when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the
equally vital right of suffrage.
When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression) to speak & freedom to know (to
information) are invoked against (vs.) maintaining free and clean elections- the police, local officials and
COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the States power to regulate are NOT
ANTAGONISTIC.
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the freedom to speak and
the right to know are unduly curtailed.
We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of election campaign activity may
not pass the test of validity if:
It is too general in its terms
Not limited in time and scope in its application
It if restricts ones expression of belief in a candidate or ones opinion of his or her qualifications,
If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the constitutionally
sanctioned objective.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on
his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the
car owner agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by the
owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else.
The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or defamatory is:
Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is a public officer.
Defamatory words may be uttered against them and not be considered libelous. The reason is that 1)
they asked for it (they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye and therefore should not be thin-
skinned); 2) its a matter of public interest; and 3) public figures have the opportunity and resources to
rebut whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); ( New York Times vs Sullivan)
In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected under the freedom of
speech in publishing paid advertisement, no matter if it contained erroneous claims and facts.
Said publication was not commercial in the sense that it communicated information,
expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought a financial
support on behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is
as immaterial as the fact that newspapers and books are sold.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just because they publish
paid advertisements. Otherwise, newspapers will be discouraged from carrying editorial
advertisements and so might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation of information and
ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities.
On errors: Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no
instance is this truer than that of the press. Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.
Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is
effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations. Presence of clear and present
danger of substantive evil must be proved. Actual Malice needs to be proved if a public official wants
to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct. Even a false
statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about the
clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as For Adults Only by the
MTRCB and was suggested to have certain portions cut/ deleted.
Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the MTRCB is limited to
the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of permissible exercise of free
speech and, therefore should be censored, is the clear and present danger test.
Assembly and Petition
The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be conditioned upon the prior
issuance of a permit or authorization from the government authorities. However, the right must
be exercised in such a way that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. Court of
Appeals)
If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such place, and not for the
assembly itself, may be validly required. Power of local officials is merely for regulation and
not for prohibition. (Primicias v. Fugoso)
Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held in: a private place; the
campus of a government-owned or operated educational institution; and freedom park. (B.P.
Blg. 880 - The Public Assembly Act of 1985')
In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold
a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2-5pm from Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and was denied
by the Mayor due to Vienna Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives may infiltrate the
ranks of the demonstrators.
Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail over Vienna Ordinance
should conflict exist (none proven because 500m not measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and
fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly- only clear and
present danger of substantive evil.
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech and
peaceful assembly
Tanada vs SC sustained the petitioner's motion compelling the mayor of

Bagatsing Manila to issue a permit to hold a rally, but changed the
meeting place to Ugarte Field, a private park
Malabanan vs (several students were suspended for 1 year for conducting
Ramento demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area
permitted by the school authorities)
SC emphasized that the students did not shed their
constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate,
and permitted the students to re-enroll and finish their studies.
Villar vs TIP (several students were barred from re-enrollment for
participating in demonstrations)
while the Court upheld the academic freedom of institutions of
higher learning, which includes the right to set academic
standards to determine under what circumstances failing
grades suffice for expulsion of students, it was held that this
right cannot be utilized to discriminate against those who
exercise their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs PSBA (that enrolment of a
student is a semester-to-semester contract and the school may
not be compelled to renew the contract) upholding the primacy
of freedom of expression, because the students do not shed
theur constitutionally protected rights at the school gate.
PBM right to free assembly and petition prevails over economic
Employees rights.
Assoc vs PBM
Tests of a lawful assembly
(1) Purpose Test
ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held, regardless of the
auspices under which it is organized
(2) Auspices Test
Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of the Communist
Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all permits previously granted by him on the
ground that the party had been found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association.
In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via counsel against
Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who charged them with libel.
Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted,
Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. And
these people did so in proper channels without undue publicity, believing they were right.
Right of Association
Section 8, Art. III. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the organization can
be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare.
SSS right to organize does not carry with it right to strike

Employees
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers'
Union
Occena vs right of association was not violated where political parties
COMELEC were prohibited from participating in the barangay elections to
insure the non-partisanship of the candidates.
In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member.
T. OBSCENITY CASES
US vs Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was charged of having

offered for sale pictures of half-clad members of
non-Christian tribes, holding that he had only
presented them in their native attire
People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude
paintings and pictures, notwithstanding his claim
that he had done so in the interest of art. SC, noting
that he has charged admission fees to the
exhibition, held that his purpose was commercial,
not merely artistic.
Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination of what is
obscene is a judicial function.
Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, would
find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest
whether the work depicts, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable law
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value
Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not think we, the

judges, were ever given the constitutional power to
make definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is a
hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the
community in which the material is being tested.
In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect minors from obscenity on the
internet.
Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional.
Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First
Amendment.
The internet is not an invasive medium because it requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate
and directed than merely turning a dial (tv or radio).
There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material through
email, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms.
The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any communication available to a
nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the
message.
The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for being indecent or patently offensive the
remaining content even if not indecent cannot be viewed anymore. Imposition of requirements (adult
identification number or credit card) would bar adults who do not have a credit card and lack the
resources to obtain one from accessing any blocked material. It burdens communication among adults.
The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based blanket restriction on speech, and
as such, cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place and manner regulation.
The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had been limited to
material displayed only on the world wide web. Chat and email were not included. The
classification of content was limited as harmful to minors using the Miller V California Test. So,
it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Notes: the Courts Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publishers responsibility to abide by that
communitys standards.
The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying community
standards in the various federal judicial districts into which they transmit the materials does not render
a federal statute unconstitutional.
- Criticism of Official Conduct

Lagunzad vs Sotto Vda. the Court granted the petition to restrain the public
de Gonzales exhibition of the movie Moises Padilla Story,
because it contained fictionalized embellishments.
Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to
privacy.
Ayer Productions vs the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of
Judge Capulong expression over Enrile's right to privacy, because
Enrile was a public figure and a public figure's right
to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie Four Days of
Revolution (sabi ni Cruz) / A Dangerous Life (sabi
ni Nachura) / The Four Day Revolution (sabi sa
case) would not be historically faithful without
including therein the participation of Enrile in the
EDSA revolution.
US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official conduct to a
scalpel that relieves the abscesses of officialdom
People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to impede,
obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in
administering justice in a pending suit or
proceeding constitutes criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the courts.
In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or
obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and
present danger to the administration of justice is not
protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is
punishable by contempt.
It is not necessary that publication actually
obstructs the administration of justice, it is enough
that it tends to do so.
In re Sotto a senator was punished for contempt for having
attacked a decision of SC which he called
incompetent and narrow-minded, and announcing
that he would file a bill for its reorganization
In re Tulfo Tulfo's Sangkatutak na Bobo column was held
contumacious. Freedom of the press is subordinate
to the decision, authority and integrity of the
judiciary and the proper administration of justice.
In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended from
the practice of law for wrting individual letters to
members of the SC division that decided a case
against his client, arrogantly questioning their
decision
Zaldivar vs a member of the Bar who imputed charges of
Sandiganbayan improper influence, corruption and other misdeeds
to members of the Supreme Court was suspended
from the practice of law as neither the right of free
speech nor the right to engage in political activities
can be so construed or extended as to permit any
such liberties to a member of the bar.
U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5, Art. III. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required
for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Religion defined
any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and
philosophy (defined by Cruz)
In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and
elevates man to his Creator.
Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution
(1) Non-establishment clause
(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
1. Non-establishment Clause
reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or denomination cannot
be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative from the religious
sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public money or property for the
benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption
from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec
4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of ownership of educational institutions except those
owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is
employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage or leprosarium]
Scope: The State
(a) cannot set up a church;
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Rationale:
to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and

to avoid encroachment by one against the other.
A union of Church and State would either:

tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength
separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility
The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages none.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship includes right not to
worship
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause:
(1) Voluntarism the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary
support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if
religions are allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage.
(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension voluntarism cannot be
achieved unless the political process is insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated
politics.
Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public schools in New York of a

prayer composed by the Board of Regents was
unconstitutional
Everson vs Board US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free
of Education transportation for all schoolchildren without discrimination,
including those attending parochial schools
Board of US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the
Education vs Allen petitioner to lend textbooks free of charge to all students
from grades 7-12, including those attending private
schools
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student
and parents, not to the church-related school
Adong vs Cheong in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of
Seng Gee all religions, the State recognizes the validity of marriages
performed in conformity with the rites of Mohammedan
religion
Rubi vs Provincial the expression non-Christian in non-Christian tribes
Board was not meant to discriminate. It refers to degree of
civilization, not to the religious belief.
Islamic Da'wah by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications,
Council of the the State has, in effect, forced Muslims to accept its own
Philippines vs interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal food.
Office of Exec.
Sec.
Intramural Religious Dispute outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities

Gonzales vs where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to
Archbishop of ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and
Manila nothing more.
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the property rights of the
religious group, or the relations of the members where the
property rights are involved, the civil courtws may assume
jurisdiction.
2. Free Exercise Clause
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:

1. Freedom to Believe
(a) absolute
(b) includes not to believe
(c) everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot
prove what he believes
2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
(b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of others
(c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it
did not create new privileges... its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not
freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma
German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were not sincere in

their profession of religious liberty and were
using it merely to express their opposition to
the government
Ebralinag vs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and
Superintendent of Schools of upheld the right of petitioners to refute to
Cebu salute the Philippine flag on account of their
religious scruples. To compel students to take
part in a flag ceremony when it is against their
religious beliefs will violate their religious
freedom.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to
avoid military service was brushed aside by
the SC
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting
Workers Union members of a religious sect from being
compelled to join a labor union
American Bible Society vs City the constitutional guarantee of free exercise
of Manila carries with it the right to disseminate
information, and any restraint of such right can
be justified only on the ground that there is a
clear and present danger of an evil which the
State has the right to prevent;
Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees
to on sale is inapplicable to the society
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and use
tax on the sale of religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the
exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose
of defraying part of the cost of registration
Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]

the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a benevolent neutrality (which
recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests, but at the same
time, strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits
benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on religion provided it
does not offend the compelling state interest test.
two steps (as regards the test):

inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened;
and
ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.
In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for religious purposes
requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in solicitations for charitable or
public welfare purposes.
Religious Tests
Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from exercising his
civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.
In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is questioned whether or
not it is consistent with the religious clause of the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an
ecclesiastic from being elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to
consider this a prohibited religious test. Five justices said it is not a religious test but a
safeguard against the constant threat of union of Church and State that has marked the
Philippine history. (Hence, since the majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution to
nullify a statute was not reached, the disqualification remains enforceable.)
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military

service was brushed aside by the SC
V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. 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. Neither shall the right to travel
be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and

2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside
Limitations
Liberty of Abode upon lawful order of the court
Right to Travel national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law
Caunca vs Salazar Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another

82 Phil 851 residence even if she had not paid yet the amount
advances by an employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by
controlling a fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual
inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc.
belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
Rubi vs Provincial The respondents were justified in requiring the members of
Board of Mindoro certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for
1919 their better education, advancement and protection. The
measure was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Villavicencio vs Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels
Lukban but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional
1919 guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be
compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law
allowing such.
Salonga vs the case became moot and academic when the permit to
Hermoso travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard.
97 SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the
Health world over and is supported by high scientific authority.
1927 Such segregation is premised on the duty to protect public
health.
Manotok vs CA Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the
1986 right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on
an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines
where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding
force.
Marcos vs The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right
Manglapus to leave, reside and travel within ones country but it does
1989 not include the right to return to ones country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a
precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national
Association of security, public health or public order, as may be provided
Service Exporters by law.
vs Drilon An order temporarily suspending the deployment of
1988 overseas workers is constitutional for having been issued
in the interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the
Labor Code.

Notes On Consti2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On Consti2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

I. THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE

Similarities, Distinctions, and Limitation

they are inherent in the State

Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

(a) Bill of Rights

Who may exercise Police Power?

(a) the Legislature (inherent)

Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:

express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)

1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute

Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.

Who may Exercise?

1. The Congress (inherent)

Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity

Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity

Requisites of Eminent Domain:

genuine necessity, and

Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):

(a) expropriator must enter a private property

if taking is under police power, it is not compensable

Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :

Police Power Eminent Domain

Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential damages, if

Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time

Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian

Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.

Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

Obligation to pay taxes is a duty

Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy

Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy

Who May Exercise

1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)

1. Due Process of Law

Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):

Equitable taxation based on the capacity to pay

whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare

Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation

Tax Exemptions may either be:

statutory- discretion of legislature

II. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Significance of the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.

3. Social and Economic Rights; and,

responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice

embodiment of sporting idea on fair play

guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property

(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)

(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude

all things within the commerce of man

Aspects of Due Process

1. Substantive Due Process

As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.

As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government

Substantive Due Process

(a) Lawful Subject

Procedural Due Process

1. Judicial Due Process

(a) Impartial and Competent Court