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 and property regulates property rights regulates property rights
only only
As to who may only the government government and some only the government
exercise private entities
As to the property destroyed because it is noxious or -wholesome -wholesome
taken intended for noxious purpose -taken for a public use or -taken for a public use or
purpose purpose
As to intangible altruistic feeling that the full and fair equivalent of protection and public
Compensation person has contributed to the the property expropriated improvements for the
general welfare 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
Page | 1
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 individual with which the right of state or
 arises from the laws of society state necessity has nothing to do
and is vested in the state or  comes under the right of necessity, of self-preservation
grantee, acting under the right  arises under the laws of society or society itself
and power of the state or  cannot require the conversion of the property taken to public use, nor
benefit of the state is there any need for the payment of just compensation

Page | 2
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 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 individual  the individual suffers more than his aliquot part
property owner is shared in common with of the damages, i.e. a special injury above that
the 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

Page | 3
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 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 1st 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 revenues  for regulatory purpose only

Page | 4
CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 justified under police power
 amount of fees required is usually limited to the cost of regulation

Page | 5
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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.

Page | 6
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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
Page | 7
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
(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.

Page | 8
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is a liberty protected by the 14th 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 14th amendment cannot interfere.

The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the state’s 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 one’s 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 hearing 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.
Page | 9
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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

Page | 10
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 circumstances which would lead a Such facts and circumstances which would
Cause reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that
has been committed and the person sought to be an offense has been committed and the
must refer to one arrested had committed it objects sought in the connection of the
(1) specific offense are in the place sought to be
offense searched
2. Personal The judge personally determines the existence of The judge must personally examine in the
determination of probable cause; it is not necessary that he should form of searching questions and answers...
probable cause personally examine the complainant and his in writing and under oath...
by the judge witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar) the complainants and his witnesses...
on facts personally known to them...
Procedure: and attach to the record their sworn
(1) personally evaluate the fiscal's report, or statements and affidavits.
(2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it and require the (Silva vs Presiding Judge)
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

Page | 11
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
prosecutor) – ascertainment whether the offender
should be held for trial or be released
3. After Not merely routinary but must be probing and Not merely routinary but must be probing and
examination exhaustive exhaustive
under oath or
affirmation of the
complainant and
the witnesses he
may produce
4.Particularity of General Rule: it must contain the name/s of the General Rule: when the description therein is
description persons to be arrested as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow.
Exception: if there is some descriptio personae
which will enable the officer to identify the accused Exception: when no other more accurate and
detailed 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

Page | 12
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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]

Page | 13
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
(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.

Page | 14
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 Excessive bail shall not be required.

Page | 15
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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
because 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

Section 14, Art. III.

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)
Page | 16
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

 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.
Page | 17
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

 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.

Page | 18
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 detainee’s 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
Page | 19
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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
Page | 20
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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:
Page | 21
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
(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.
Page | 22
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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:
Page | 23
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 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
Page | 24
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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 may be called upon to
Pompeya 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 vs No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service, and
Williams no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal
sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor.

K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

Section 19, Art. III.

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.
Page | 25
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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

Page | 26
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
4) Dismissal on the merits.

Page | 27
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 prosecution’s 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.

Page | 28
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
(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 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.

Page | 29
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 woman’s decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy. But a woman’s 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
Page | 30
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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:

Page | 31
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

 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 can’t compel custodians of
Belmonte official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like, such not being based on
1989 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 judge may regulate the
Dimaano manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy records in his office, may
1976 exercise their rights.
Legaspi v CSC Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of public
1987 concern.
What matters constitute “public concern” should be determined by the court on a case to
case basis.
Chavez v Public concern (def.) – writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with
PCGG 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 the convict was
case 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
Page | 32
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 circulation constitutes censorship
American Press
Co.

Page | 33
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
Burgos vs Chief the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum by
of Staff 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 the mobile units used in the
COMELEC campaign was held to be unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of censorship
Sanidad vs the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or newspaper
COMELEC 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 during the prescribed
COMELEC 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 (BRMPT) has the authority to
vs CA 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 absolutely prohibit, the use of
Fugosos public places for the purpose indicated.
National Press the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646, which prohibited any
Club vs person making use of the media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for
COMELEC 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.
Osmeňa vs SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate exercise of police power. The regulation
COMELEC 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 stickers in mobile units like
COMELEC 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 adults only.” the petition was
katigbak 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
Page | 34
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
student)

Page | 35
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
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 election 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  (speech inside an auditorium with 800 persons)

of Chicago  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 The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not absolutely prohibit,
Fugosos 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 the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was invalid as there was no showing of
Bagatsing 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 is null and void. Respondents
Secretary Ermita are enjoined from using it and to strictly observe the requirements of maximum
tolerance.
Cabansag vs It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force or violence be
Fernandez 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 PRESENT DANGEROUS TENDENCY BALANCE OF INTEREST RULE

DANGER RULE RULE
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved in the light of the peculiar
circumstances obtaining in each particular case

Page | 36
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

 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 State’s 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 one’s expression of belief in a candidate or one’s 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) it’s 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.
Page | 37
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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 Manila to issue a permit to
Bagatsing 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 demonstration in the
Ramento 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 rights.
Employees
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.

Page | 38
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 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 Employees right to organize does not carry with it right to strike
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union
Occena vs right of association was not violated where political parties were prohibited from
COMELEC 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.

Page | 39
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA

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 Court’s Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s responsibility to abide by that community’s
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 the Court granted the petition to restrain the public exhibition of the movie
Vda. de Gonzales “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 expression over Enrile's “right to
Judge Capulong 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 improper influence, corruption
Sandiganbayan 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
Page | 40
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 “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 of US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free transportation for all
Education schoolchildren without discrimination, including those attending parochial schools
Board of Education US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner to lend textbooks free
vs Allen 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 all religions, the State
Seng Gee 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” was not meant to
Board 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, the State has, in effect,
Council of the forced Muslims to accept its own interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal
Philippines vs Office food.
of Exec. Sec.

Page | 41
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities
Gonzales vs where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs,
Archbishop of the civil tribunal tries the civil right and nothing more.
Manila
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 upheld the right of petitioners to
Superintendent of refute to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious scruples. To
Schools of Cebu 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 SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting members of a religious sect from
Rope Workers Union being compelled to join a labor union
American Bible Society the constitutional guarantee of free exercise carries with it the right to
vs City of Manila 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 the free exercise clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable
Finance 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.

Page | 42
 CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
by PORFERIO JR. and MELFA SALIDAGA
 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 invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military service was brushed aside by the SC
vs Zosa

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

Page | 43