CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

I. THE INHERENT/ FUNDAMENTAL 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 and may be exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant.
· They are necessary and indispensable The State cannot continue or be effective unless it is
able to
exercise them.
· They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
· They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
· They are exercised primarily by the legislature.

Differences:
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

As to regulates both regulates property Regulates property

regulation/extent of liberty and property rights only rights only
power
As to who may only the government government and only the government
exercise some private entities
As to the property destroyed because it -wholesome -wholesome
taken is -taken for a public -taken for a public
noxious or intended use or purpose use or purpose
for
noxious purpose
As to Compensation intangible altruistic full and fair protection and
feeling that the equivalent of the public
person property improvements for
has contributed to expropriated the taxes paid
the
general welfare

Limitations:
(a) May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights.
(b) Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in
proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is a grave abuse of discretion.

A. POLICE POWER

Police Power – is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

Justification of existence:

· Salus populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the people is the supreme law;

· Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – a person must use his own property so as not to
injure another

Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v
Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian
Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts
(police power prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate

Who may exercise Police Power?

(a) the Legislature (inherent)
(b) President (by delegation)
(c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by delegation)
(e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute – general welfare clause of RA 7160)

· Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no police power.
(MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoc.)

Tests (Limitations):

(a) Lawful subject – interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of police power

(b) Lawful means – the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals

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

· express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)
· within territorial limits (for LGU's)
· must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta)
· for municipal ordinances -
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy

· In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, police
power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers
extending as it does “to all great public needs.”

“[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of
their business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of police
power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest
be affected by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the
disadvantages which may result from the exercise of that power. ”

Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees even to prohibitive
levels, if public interest dictates so, without any constitutional violations.

Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise of police power
and the right to exact fees is may be implied from that power to regulate. In setting the fees,
municipal corporations are given wider discretion in this class of licenses (than for licenses
issued to regular business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability of
imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful enterprises.

· In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of carabao under the
assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation and disposal without court hearing is a
violation of due process hence it is an invalid exercise of police power.

The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case.

Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and is
restrained by due process, which requires notice and hearing.

Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process requirement .

Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:

 ◦ No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute ban on movement of
carabeef) and purpose sought to be achieved (conservation of carabao for general
welfare)
◦ Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or opportunity to be heard in
proper court

B. EMINENT DOMAIN

Eminent Domain – is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just
compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to public
use. Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.

Who may Exercise?

1. The Congress (inherent)
2. President
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority)
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)

Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity

Eminent Domain Destruction from Necessity

· public right · private right vested in every individual

· arises from the laws of society and is with which the right of state or state
vested in the state or grantee, acting under necessity has nothing
the right and power of the state or benefit to do
of the state · comes under the right of necessity, of self-
preservation
· arises under the laws of society or society
itself
· cannot require the conversion of the
property taken to public use, nor is there
any need for the payment of just
compensation

· The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.

Requisites of Eminent Domain:

1. Necessity of exercise
2. Private property
3. Taking
4. Public use
5. Just compensation

1. Necessity of Exercise
· genuine necessity, and
· must be of public character
◦ When exercised by legislature – political question
◦ When exercised by a delegate – justiciable question
▪ determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking; and (c)
public
use character

2. Private Property
· General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to
expropriation
· Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the
right to
bring an action to recover debt, money or thing)
· Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting
under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community)

3. Taking
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
(a) expropriator must enter a private property
(b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
(c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
(d) entry is for public use
(e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property

· if taking is under police power, it is not compensable

Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :

Police Power Eminent Domain

· the prejudice suffered by the individual · the individual suffers more than his aliquot
property owner is shared in common with part of the damages, i.e. a special injury
the rest of the community above that
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 totalarea of memorial parks must be
developed and set aside for the burial of paupers. The Court held that such ordinance is not
an exercise of police power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to
satisfy the Constitution, there must be compensation.

4. Public Use

Public use – is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including both
direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public

· In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution understand public use in a
broad sense as meaning public welfare. That includes development of tourism.

5. Just Compensation

Just compensation – is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the
measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. It is
not market value per se. (Epza v. Dulay)

· Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential

damages, if any
+ consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation provided
consequential
benefits does not exceed consequential damages

◦ Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time

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

Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with
a revolutionary kind of expropriation).

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

· Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of taking or

filing of the complaint, whichever comes first

· Entitlement of interest:
◦ General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art.
2209, CC)
◦ Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest
· Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title,
during which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by
the expropriator.

· Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

◦ General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to
demand payment
◦ Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the
finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property

· In De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding against the
property of petitioner was arbitrary and cannot receive judicial approval. There was another
area where the expansion of EDSA can be undertaken, which will cost government less, affect
lesser homeowners, etc.

· But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated. Apparently, BP
340, which called for the taking of the property, was enacted after the 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

· justified under police power
· amount of fees required is usually limited
to the
cost of regulation
Scope
· all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and
tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property
owned by persons domiciled therein

Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy

(1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect
ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare

Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy

· where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues

Who May Exercise

1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)
2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti])
3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])

Limitations of Taxation:
1. Due Process of Law
2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose

1. Due Process
· Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police
power
· Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. However, where the tax to be
collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be
notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of
the property.

2. Equal Protection
· embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation shall be uniform
and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.)

· Uniformity – persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate
◦ Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class

· Equitable taxation – based on the capacity to pay

· Equality in taxation – tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property

· Progressive system of taxation – the rate increases as the tax base increases

3. Public Purpose
· whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare

· Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation

◦ when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction
during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
◦ despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it
results in a violation of the equal protection clause.

· Tax Exemptions may either be:

◦ constitutional
▪ Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually,
directly and exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes –
entitled to exemption

◦ statutory- discretion of legislature

II. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Bill of Rights – set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of
the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of
securing the enjoyment of those rights.

Significance of the Bill of Rights

Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of

Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property
which governmental power may not touch.

· Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.

Classification of Rights

1. Political Rights – granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or

indirect participation in the establishment or administration of the government;

2. Civil Rights – rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals
for the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of happiness;

3. Social and Economic Rights; and,

4. Human Rights.

A. DUE PROCESS

Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

· no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from
adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases
· responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice
· embodiment of sporting idea on fair play
· guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

Protection of Person

Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to
property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

· connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property

· not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.
· When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the
action is valid.

1. Life
· It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against
physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent
standard of living.
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
3. Property
· anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract
· all things within the commerce of man
· However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as
property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time.
· Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will

Aspects of Due Process

1. Substantive Due Process
2. Procedural Due Process
· As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.
· As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government
agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of
procedural fairness.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights
of the person to his life, liberty or property

Requisites:
(a) Lawful Subject
(b) Lawful Means

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process – is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies
of government.

1. Judicial Due Process

Requisites:
(a) Impartial and Competent Court
(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and/or property
(c) Hearing
· not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough
· right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an
indispensable part of due process
· the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing
· Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due
process:
◦ abatement of nuisance per se
◦ preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
◦ cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime
◦ statutory presumptions
(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)

2. Administrative Due Process

Requisites:
(a) Right to a hearing
(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(c) Decision must have something to support itself
(d) Evidence must be Substantial
(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration
of the facts and law of the controversy
(g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered

· In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence,

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

· The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men “of common intelligence
must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects:
▪ it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid;
and,
▪ it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

· In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process
because the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not uncertain and void merely
because general terms are used or because it employed terms that were not defined. The
Anti-Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which it purports to
punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively
interpose a defense against on his behalf.

· A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception
violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of
the Bill of Rights.
◦ Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the Court ruled that that the
right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. “The
First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is
protected from governmental intrusion.”

· In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New York
for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one
week. The statute allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or agree to
work more than 10 hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes.

The statute is unconstitutional. The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the
right of free contract between employer and employee by determining the hours of labor in
the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.

The general right to make a contract in relation to 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 quasijudicial 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 hearting or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate
 (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the
reason for the decision rendered.

B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws.

· The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the
Person. The equality it guarantees is “legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all
persons before the law.
· embraced in the concept of due process
· embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue
favoritism or hostility from the government

Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general

Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice

Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as
to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

Equality in enforcement of the law – law be enforced and applied equally

Requisites of Valid Classification:

(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
◦ must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class
◦ both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed

· In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the

equal protection clause because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the
COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more than four
years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of election officers in order to
“ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity
with the people of their place of assignment.

· In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central
by name. Ormos Sugar Central is the only sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that
such ordinance is not valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central
which alone comes under the ordinance.

C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 2, Art. III. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 2, Art. III – deals with tangibles; embodies the “castle” doctrine (a man's house is
his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys
within the domain and privacy of his own home.)

· This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with enforcement of the law. It does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches
and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.

Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)
· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be
required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power of
taxation The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)

· General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the
purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law

Valid Warrantless Searches

[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]

1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) – for dangerous weapons or
anything that may have been used or constitute in the commission of an offense

Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate
control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest

2. searches of moving vehicles

· In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was
stopped and searched. The motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor
had the searching officers received any confidential information about the car. The Court
held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle as there
was no probable cause.

3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view

Requisites:
1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent
4. there is no further search

4. enforcement of customs law

5. consented searches

6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)

· In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: “(W)here a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that
criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and
presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial
stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited
search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might
be used to assault him.”

· Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:

(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (Malacat)

7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry

8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

Valid Warrantless Arrest

1. in flagrante delicto
2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment

Requisites of a valid warrant

 Arrest Warrant Search Warrant

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

3. After examination under Not merely routinary but Not merely routinary but
oath or affirmation of the must must
complainant and the be probing and exhaustive be probing and exhaustive
witnesses he may produce
4.Particularity of General Rule: it must General Rule: when the
description contain the name/s of the description therein is as
persons to be arrested specific
Exception: if there is some as the circumstances will
descriptio personae which ordinarily allow.
will enable the officer to Exception: when no other
identify the accused 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.

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.

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)

Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered

1. letters
2. messages
3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes

Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed

1. Upon lawful order of the court, or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

· When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based upon a
government official's assessment that public safety and order demand such intrusion.
Public Order and Safety – the security of human lives, liberty, and property against the
activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.

· RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties for specific
violations of private communication. Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized
taps, under specific conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war
and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and
 proposal to commit rebellion, inciting rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.

P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

· In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the government has the
burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308 in this case) is justified by some
compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn.

“In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all
incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely
requires that the law be narrowly focused.” Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by
proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions.

· In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman
chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to
live outside the mother's womb.

(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but the Court has
recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution. The Court deemed abortion a
fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws
attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain “fundamental
rights” are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified
only by a “compelling state interest.”

(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a 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.

SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

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.

Freedom of Speech – “at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate
flower of all liberty.” (Wendell Philips)

Scope
· Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the discussion of
matters affecting the public interest. Purely private interest matters do not come within the
guaranty (invasion of privacy is not sanctioned by the Constitution).

· covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view. (One of the
functions of this freedom is “to invite dispute” – US Supreme Court; “I may not agree with
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire)

· The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant not only to
protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the majority who refuse to listen. -
Socrates)
Importance

The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas – that the best test of
truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

Modes of Expression

(a) Oral and written language

(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)

Elements of Freedom of Expression

(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship

(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment

Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship

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 American Press Co. There need not be total suppression; even
restriction of circulation constitutes
censorship
Burgos vs Chief of Staff the search, padlocking and sealing of the
offices of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum
 by military authorities, resulting in the
discontinuance of publication of the
newspapers, was held to be prior restraint
Mutuc vs COMELEC the COMELEC prohibition against the use of
taped jingles in the mobile units used in the
campaign was held to be unconstitutional, as
it was in the nature of censorship
Sanidad vs COMELEC the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition
against radio commentators or newspaper
columnists from commenting on the issues
involved in the scheduled plebiscite on the
organic
law creating the Cordillera Autonomous
Region as an unconstitutional restraint on
freedom of expression
But...

Gonzales vs COMELEC the Court upheld the validity of the law

which prohibited, except during the
prescribed election period, the making of
speeches, announcements or commentaries
for or against the election of any party or
candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate
preoccupation of the people with politics
tended toward the neglect of the other
serious needs of the nation and the pollution
of its suffrages.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and
Television (BRMPT) has the authority to
review the petitioner's television program.
However, the Board acted with grave abuse
of discretion when it gave an “X-rating” to
the TV program on the ground of “attacks
against another religion.” Such a
classification can be justified only if there is
a showing that the tv program would create
a clear and present danger of an evil which
the State ought to prevent.
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only reasonably
regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of
public places for the purpose indicated.
National Press Club vs COMELEC the Supreme Court upheld the validity of
Sec. 11(b), RA 6646, which prohibited any
person making use of the media to sell or to
give free of charge print space or air time
for campaign
or other political purposes except to the
COMELEC. This was held to be within the
power of the COMELEC to supervise the
enjoyment or utilization of franchises for the
operation of
media of communication and information,
for the purpose of ensuring equal
opportunity, time and space, and the “right
to reply,” as well as uniform and reasonable
rates of charges for the use of such media
facilities.
Osmeňa vs COMELEC SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a
legitimate exercise of police power. The
regulation is unrelated to the suppression of
speech, as any restriction on freedom of
expression occasioned thereby is only
incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of
promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the
 ruling in PPI vs COMELEC, because in the
latter, SC simply said that COMELEC cannot
procure print space without paying just
compensation.

Adiong vs COMELEC COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting

of decals, and stickers in mobile units like
cars and other moving vehicles was declared
unconstitutional for infringement 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
katigbak the movie as “for adults only.” the petition
was dismissed because the Board did not
commit grave abuse of discretion.