Você está na página 1de 20

DE LA SALL UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law II
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Second Semester January 2017
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Course Objectives: At the end of the course, the students will be able:
1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people.
2. To understand the concept of due process and its application.
3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people
against possible abuses of the government.
4. To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the
enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights.
5. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the Supreme Court
applies and interprets such rights in assigned cases.

I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS


A. Concept of Sovereign Will: Preamble Art. II, Sections 1 and 3, Art V, Constitution
B. The Concept of Separation of Powers and the Three Branches of Government:
Art.VI, VII and VIII, Constitution
C. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to
liberty, property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
The Bill of Rights: The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the
individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a
private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare
some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
[People v. Marti (1991)]
It is self-executing. [Gamboa v. Teves (2011)]
It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by individuals, or by
groups of individuals.
Article III of the Constitution protects the following person's fundamental civil and
political rights:
(1) Civil rights rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a
state or community.
(2) Political rights rights that pertain to an individuals citizenship vis--vis the
management of the government.
(3) Social and economic rights rights which are intended to insure the well-being
and economic security of the individual.
(4) Rights of the accused civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused
of any crime.
Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The rights of free expression and
of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and
vitality of civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of
the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of
those who have no patience with general principles.[Philippine Blooming Mills
Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973)]

1 | Page
The Bill of Rights serves -
(1) To preserve democratic ideals.
(2) To safeguard fundamental rights.
(3) To promote the happiness of an individual.
General Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private
individuals. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. [Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]
Exception to the Rule: The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court
against a private party. (Zulueta v. C.A. , 1996)
Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights
1. RATIONAL BASIS TEST: This test is applicable for economic, property, commercial
legislation. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: This requires the government to show an overriding or
compelling government interest so great that it justifies the limitation of fundamental
constitutional rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the
law makes the classification necessary.
3. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST: A third standard, denominated as heightened or
immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating
classifications based on gender and legitimacy. While the test may have first been
articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all
substantive due process cases as well. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
VOID FOR VAGUENESS: An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its
application.
On the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the creation of
the Anti-Terrorism Council: A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the
offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
conduct is prohibited by the statute. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application. The statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects:
(1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it,
fair notice of what conduct to avoid;
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism
Council (2010)]
On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law: [This doctrine] can only be
invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining
whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a
sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that
the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be
upheld not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayad]
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]

2 | Page
General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal
statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are
intended to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts.
Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech. (Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in order
to counter the chilling effect of the same.) [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014), on the
constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law]
1. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. Toll Regulatory Board, 742
SCRA 395, G.R. No. 167290 November 26, 2014: In Mirasol v. Department of Public
Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006), the Court has further noted that: A toll way is
not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain
destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public interest and
safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary
roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use
it. (Bersamin, J.)
2. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and
Development
(DSWD), 526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senior Citizens Act
3. Fernando v. St. Scholasticas College, 693 SCRA 141 (2013): the LGU
cannot compel or impose restrictions of the property rights of private
persons under the guise of exercise of police powers.
4. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014): a Mayor
may exercise adjudicatory powers and order demolition of a structure
which contravenes an ordinance in his jurisdiction.
5. Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Constitution allows local
governments to raise their own sources of revenue but the provision of a
public service is not subject to any form of tax imposition; taxes on idle
lands and socialized housing are valid but tax on garbage collection is
invalid.
6. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue,
600 SCRA 413 (2009): payment of documentary taxes and VAT by way of
deficiency assessment by the BIR; contracts of HMO are not subject to
DST and VAT.
7. National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 737 SCRA 305
(2014): assessment of franchise tax on NAPOCOR; NAPOCOR is liable to
pay franchise tax to the LGU
8. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991): the right against illegal search and
seizure cannot be invoked against a private person
9. Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30,
2014: There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should be
taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the same
jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the taxes are of the same kind or character.
(Bersamin, J.)

D. The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power, Power to Tax, Power to
Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights

3 | Page
Read annotations found in political/ constitutional law books written by C.J.
Justice Enrique Fernando, Fr. Jaoquin Bernas S.J., Justice Isagani Cruz and
Professor Rene B. Gorospe
1. Police Power
Definition: Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to
prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. Police power []
has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and
Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila (1967)]
Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled
general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide
enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. [White
Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
Scope and Limitations: The police power of the State [] is a power coextensive with
self-protection, and is [aptly] termed the 'law of overruling necessity.' [Rubi v. Provincial
Board (1919)]
The state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with
property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the
state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated. [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co. (1979)]
Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power
(1) Lawful Subject
(2) Lawful Means
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in
this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He said that while it
is the prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of
police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected
against unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the
exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. But when
its purpose is putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must
be struck down just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power,
a government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA
is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the
Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the
implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances
and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.-p

2. Power of Eminent Domain


Definition: The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn
private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.
Scope and Limitations: It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the
State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Section 9 of Article III of the
Constitution merely imposes a limit on the governments exercise of this power. [Republic
v.Tagle (1998)].
The repository of eminent domain powers is lodged in the legislature which is exercised
through the enactment of laws.
4 | Page
Delegation of power to expropriate: Delegation of the power may be done through
legislation. Thus under R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code), the power has been be
delegated to LGUs. Other government entities through the charters creating them also enjoy
the right to expropriate. [Manapat v. CA (2007)]
Requisites for exercise of the power of eminent domain
(1) Private property
(2) Genuine necessity
(3) For public purpose
(4) Payment of just compensation
(5) Due process [Manapat v. CA (2007)
Circumstances which may warrant taking-
When the owner is deprived of his proprietary rights, there is taking of private property. It
may include
(1) Diminution in value;
(2) Prevention of ordinary use; and
(3) Deprivation of beneficial use.
Cases:
1. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, 670 SCRA
392 (2012): award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or collectively
through a juridical person; a resolution of an administrative agency has the effect of a law and
can be governed by the operative fact doctrine.
2. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 700
SCRA 243 (2013) and Resolution dated 21 April 2015, SCRA (G.R.
No. 179334, 21 April 2015): where a private property is not entitled to just compensation
3. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA 618
(2010): limitation on the exercise of power; right of the private property owner
4. Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015): Considering that the
Court has consistently upheld the primordial importance of public use in expropriation
proceedings, NAPOCORs reliance on Metropolitan Water District v. De los Angeles, 55 Phil.
776 (1931), was apt and correct. Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily
stripped the expropriation proceedings of the element of public use. To continue with the
expropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the project
would result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the
absence of the essential element of public use. (Bersamin, J.)
5. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Suntay, 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No. 188376 December 14,
2011: The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be paid to the landowner
as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from the Agrarian Reform
Fund. As such, the liability is not the personal liability of Land Bank, but its liability only as
the administrator of the ARF. In fact, Section 10, Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, reiterates that the satisfaction of a judgment for just compensation by writ of
execution should be from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. (Bersamin, J.)
6. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA
60 (2011): nature of public use; when is a party entitled to just compensation despite no
apparent physical taking
7. Export Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone Authority) vs. Pulido, 656
SCRA 315, G.R. No. 188995 August 24, 2011: Compensation cannot be just to the owner in
the case of property that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment, considering
that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss
of its fruits or income. Thus, in addition, the owner is entitled to legal interest from the time
of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place the owner in a position

5 | Page
as good as, but not better than, the position he was in before the taking occurred. (Bersamin,
J.)
8. Apo Fruits Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 607 SCRA 200, G.R. No. 164195 December
4, 2009: The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power of
eminent domain. A basic limitation on the States power of eminent domain is the
constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation. Just compensation refers to the sum equivalent to the market value of the
property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and
ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as between
one who receives and one who desires to sell. It is fixed at the time of the actual taking by the
State. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the
court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its
just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.
9. vda De Ouano vs. Republic [G.R. No. 168770, 2011]: In expropriation, the private owner
is deprived of property against his will; due process ought to be strictly followed. Public
use as an eminent domain concept, has now acquired an expansive meaning to include
any use that is of usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of general
benefit (of the public). (Velasco, J.)
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a
private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property; requisites, how
just compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.

3. Power of Taxation
Definition: Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the necessary expenses
of the Government. It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and
property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government
and for all public needs.
Under the lifeblood theory, taxes are imposed -
(1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for regulation
(3) To serve as protection of states interest/power to keep alive
Scope and Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public purpose.
(2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are
private individuals.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to
confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must
be exercised with utmost caution, otherwise, the States power to legislate for the public
welfare might be seriously curtailed.
(4) Uniformity of taxation
General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity.
Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation,
provided the requisites for valid classification are met. [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of
Ormoc (1968)]
(5) Taxes must be equitable
As a general rule, taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their
ability to pay.

6 | Page
Claim for Tax Exemptions
General Rule: Tax exemptions are frowned upon. Therefore, no law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
There is no vested right in a tax exemption [.] Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. [Republic v.
Caguioa (2009)]
Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory.
Constitutional exemptions [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]
Requisites: Actual, Direct and Exclusive Use by the following:
(a) Educational institutions
(b)Charitable institutions
(c) Religious organizations
If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress. [Sec.
28 (4), Art. VI]
Case:
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up
a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not
taxed by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it sets
out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence
with regard to certain classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of
source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case,
the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid
double taxation.

E. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens;
aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical persons
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution
Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008), See Art. XII. Sec. 14, para 2: reciprocity
Poe-Llmanzares v. COMELEC(2016): a foundling is a natural-born citizen

F. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights:


Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)

II. Citizenship
A. People
1. Different meanings of words people:
People as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to exclude
aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens
who are considered undesirable.
People as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
People as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4

7 | Page
B. Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V
Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2
Poe- Llamanzares v. COMELEC, supra
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
President and Vice President, Art. VII, Sec. 2
Members of Congress, Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1); and
D, Sec. 1(1)
Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, Sec. 17 (2)

Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec. 8
Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
Citizenship by legislative act
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under
the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the
Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage.

III. RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE


PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES

A. Right to Life
Republic v. Kagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008)
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan, et al., G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014

B. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III)


Definition: Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should
conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be
valid. x x x It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of
justice. Negatively pit, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. x x x Correctly it has
been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair
play. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]

8 | Page
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial. [Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]
REQUISITES OF DUE PROCESS
Due process of law means simply that -
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
department of the Government;
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. [ Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions
of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner
by which a law is enforced.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking
away a persons life, liberty, or property. [City of Manila v. Laguio (2005)]
Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It is a rule of law that before a person
may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically informed of its contents. For the
publication requirement, laws refer to all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws. This does not cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies,
which are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be full, or there is none
at all. [Taada v. Tuvera (1986)]
RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. This
requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying procedural due process. This does
not apply to substantive due process. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)]
A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the
private interest that has been affected by governmental action must be considered in
determining the application of the rules of procedure. [Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers
Union v. McElroy (1961].
To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges are at large to
apply it to any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined
that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural
safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution)
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997
2. Procedural Due Process
a. Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958,
187961 and 187962, April 7, 2010, Pay attention to the cardinal rules of due process
in administrative proceedings.
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the Philippines v.
Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al. . G.R. No. 163859, August 15, 2012
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431,
August 6, 2012
Right to Counsel:

9 | Page
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010
b. Due process in judicial proceedings: Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of
the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Spouses Go and Minor
Chester Go v. Colegio de San de Letran, et al., G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012
Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT Community
Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2013
Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco,
G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010
Right to Counsel: Lumiqued v. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125 (1997)
Instances when no notice and hearing are required
Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 534 SCRA 228(2007)
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182267, Aug.28,
2009

3. Substantive Due Process


a. Due Process and Property Rights
Due Process and Property Rights: Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011
b. Due Process and Police Power: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association Inc. v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849(1967)
Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416(2009)
c. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and Article 18, Article
XII)
Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and just
compensation
Procedural Requirement: Answer required in eminent domain proceedings
City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te, G.R. No. 169263, September 21, 2011
d. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy
Concept of the Right (Section 3, Article III, Constitution)
Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013
When may right be invoked
Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R.A. 4200)
Privileged Communication
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, Hon. Zamora
Navarro v. CA and the People of the Philippines August 1999
Alejano v. Cabuhay, 468 SCRA 188(2005)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA (1998)

C. Equal Protection Clause


Definition: Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall
be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied
the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like
circumstances. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION

10 | P a g e
(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
(2) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) Apply equally to all members of the same class.
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
All classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by
petitioner. [Lacson v. Executive Secretary (1999)]
BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION: age, gender, religion, economic class, ethnicity, race,
sexual orientation, economic class, residence, disability, date of filing/ effectivity of
the law
Cases: Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22
(2014)
Economic Equality:Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage - Ichong v.
Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1165 (1957)
Political Equality: Dilution of voting rights based on residence: Aquino and Robredo v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
Exclusion based on sexual orientation: Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April
8, 2010
Social Equality: Forced resettlement based on ethnicity: Rubi v. Provincial Board of
Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660 Privilege based on ethnicity: Cruz v. NCIP, G.R. No. 135385,
December 6, 2000

D. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE


1. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution)
Contract Clause: A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in
the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those
expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its
terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void.
REQUISITES:
(1) When there is substantial impairment which
(a) changes the terms of legal contract either in time or mode of performance;
(b) imposes new conditions;
(c) dispenses with expressed conditions; or
(d) authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in the terms.
(2) When a law affects the rights of parties with reference to each other, and not with respect
to non-parties. [Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association v. Secretary, DILG,
G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003]
Exceptions to rule when the state may impair contracts:
(1) Power of taxation: government may increase taxes covering certain transactions
(2) Regulation on loans: as a matter of public interest, the government may impose
restrictions on loans
2. Concept of Vested Right
3. Waiver of Right
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011
Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March 13,
2013

11 | P a g e
IV. INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND
PRESS), FREE ASSEMBLY AND PETITION, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION,
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)


1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHT: The primacy and high esteem accorded freedom
of expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was elevated
to constitutional status [] reflecting our own lesson of history, both political and legal, that
freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom.
The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms
of communication. It protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as
political causes, and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. The protection
covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues, about which
information is needed or appropriate, so as to enable members of society to cope with the
exigencies of their period. [Chavez v. Gonzales (2008)]
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression
of Self- Fulfillment of Citizens
Speech, expression, and press include:
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not)
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands as symbol of protest)
(3) Movies and other literary works

3. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance of


Peace, Promotion of Community Morals, and Protection of Individual Dignity

FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE


General Rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is
unconstitutional. [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)]
Exception: A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is
overbroad because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. The theory is that
[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests
itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value
to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on
overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that
his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.
The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and
perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad
statutes.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes [without a free-speech aspect]. Criminal
statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting
laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take
chances as in the area of free speech. [Southern Hemisphere, supra]
However, said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014)]
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE

12 | P a g e
A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly
and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

Tests applied to Freedom of Speech:


DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST: If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil
which the State has the right to prevent, then such words are punishable. [Cabansag v.
Fernandez (1957)]
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST: This rule requires that the danger created must not
only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed. [Gonzales v. COMELEC
(1969)]
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST: When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of
public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional and partial abridgement of
speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests
demands greater protection. [American Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 US 282]

4. Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression, distinguished:


a. Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines, Obscenity, and Incitement
to National Security, False or Misleading Advertisement, Libelous Speech, Hate
Speech and Contumacious Speech.
b. Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression
may include utterances critical of public conduct, ordinary commercial speech, and
satirical speech/parody.

5. How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression


Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as
gleaned from Justice Carpios concurring opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, supra:
(i). any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is
unconstitutional.
(ii). only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint.
(iii). prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional.
(iv).government has the burden of proof every time it exercises
censorship.
6. Standards of Review
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions:
For validity of content-neutral regulation
(1)If it is within the constitutional power of the government
(2) If it furthers an important or substantial government interest
(3) If the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
(4) If the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest
Miller Test to determine obscenity:
(1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value [Miller v. CA (1973) also applied in Fernando v. CA (2006)]
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness
Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354, Revised Penal Code)
13 | P a g e
Cases:
1. Chavez v. Gonzalez, 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
2. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA 2014 and 723 SCRA 109
(2014)
3. Osmea v. Commission on Elections, 288 SCRA 447 (1998)
4. Social Weather Stations, Incorporated v. Commission on Elections, 357
SCRA 496 (2001)
5. GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014)
6. Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015)
7. 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. Commission on Elections, 755
SCRA 441 (2015)
8. Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 755 SCRA 124
(2015)
9. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism
Council,
632 SCRA 146 (2010)
10. Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v.
Duque III 535 SCRA 265 (2007) {Read Separate Opinion of C.J. Puno}
11. Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006
12. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza, Jr., 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
13. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity: A
Statement
by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme
Court, 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
14. Soriano vs. Laguardia [G.R. No. 164785. April 29, 2009]: Plain and simple insults to
another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious speech. (Velasco, J.)

B. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the
government, and should not cover recognized exceptions. [Chavez v. Philippine Estate
Authority (2002)]
Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege): Secrecy of negotiations with foreign
countries is not violative of the right to information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature.
While the full text [of the JPEPA] may not be kept perpetually confidential, it is in line with
the public interest that the offers exchanged during negotiations continue to be privileged
information. Furthermore, the information sought includes documents produced and
communicated by a party external to the Philippine government. However, such privilege is
merely presumptive, and will not apply to all cases. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
THE FOLLOWING ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS:
1. Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
2. Information of military and diplomatic secrets (Neri v. Various Committees of the
Senate)
3. Information affecting national and economic security
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v.
PEA and Amari, supra]
5. Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]

14 | P a g e
6. Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
7. Other confidential matters (i.e. RA 6713, closed door Cabinet meetings, executive
sessions, or internal deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Re: Request for Copy of
2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and
Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justice of the Supreme
Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary, 672 SCRA 27
(2012)]
Cases:
1. Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 299 SCRA 744
(1998)
2. Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth
[SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justice of
the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary, 672 SCRA
27 (2012)
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28,
Constitution
3. Limitations
Cases:
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006)
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008)
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010

C. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM


GOVERNMENT
Bayan v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb. 24, 2010
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010

D. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
Scope: The right is recognized as belonging to people whether employed or unemployed, and
whether employed in the government or in the private sector. The right includes the right to
form labor unions, societies or associations not contrary to law.
Case:
In Re: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, 84 SCRA 556 (1978): compulsory
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8,
Constitution
Case:
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, Inc. (1974)

E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
CONCEPT: The clause prohibits excessive government entanglement with, endorsement or
disapproval of religion. [Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union (1974)]
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test, Art.III,
Sec.5, Constitution
TESTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
(1). CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
15 | P a g e
(2). BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY-COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
(3). CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5), Constitution
BASIS
[T]he principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual respect. Generally, the
State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much less question its faith and
dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. On
the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest
of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely
believes that they are good for the country. [Imbong v. Ochoa (2014)]
Relevant provisions of the Constitution on the separation of the church and the state:
(1) Art. II, Sec. 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
(2) Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(5): Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered [as
political parties].
(3) Art. VI, Sec. 5(2): For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from [] sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
(4) Art. VI, Sec. 29(2): No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister,
other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on Ones
Beliefs
CASES:
1. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
2. Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
3.Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
4. Imbong v. Ochoa (constitutionality of the RH Bill): Read only the portion on conscientious
objector in relation to freedom of religion
F. Academic Freedom
The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. All private
educational institutions may prescribe its own requirements to maintain the standard of
quality of academic quality.
Case: PTA of St. Mathew Christian Academy et al., v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 176518, March 2,
2010)
V. PHYSICAL LIBERTY: LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
FREEDOM TO BE SECURE IN ONES PERSON, HOME AND POSSESSION
A. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
Freedom of movement includes two rights:
1) Liberty of abode
2) Liberty of travel
LIMITATIONS: In certain instances both the liberty of abode and right to travel may
be impaired.
Case: OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012

16 | P a g e
In interest of national security, public safety or public health and as may be provided by law,
both the freedom of abode and right to travel may be restricted.
Case: Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force citizens of the Philippine
Islands to change their domicile from one locality to another. [Villavicencio vs. Lukban
(1919)]
The liberty to travel may be withheld upon order of the courts through the issuance of Hold
Departure Orders.
Case: Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009

Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, is a proper restraint to their liberty. It is for


their advancement in civilization and so that material prosperity may be assured. [Rubi vs.
Provincial Board (1919)]
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing
jurisdiction if accused travels abroad. [Manotoc vs. CA (1986)]
B. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Constitution
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967)
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
2010
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R.
191080, November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No.
170217, 170694, December 10, 2012
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest
Cases: Yao, Sr. v. People 108 SCRA (2007)
People v. Nunes, G.R. No. 177148, June 30, 2009
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure)
Case: Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 598 SCRA 41 (2009)
4. Valid warrantless searches
Search incident to a valid arrest:
Cases: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R. No. 180452, January 10, 2011;
Buy Bust Operation People v. Buenaventura G.R. No. 184807, November 23, 2011
The Plain View Doctrine
Cases: Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005)
Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011
Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000)
Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
Consented Search: searches in school premises; access to parking areas; entry to malls
Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts -Pollo v. Chairperson Constantino-
David, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011
C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS DATA,
WRIT OF KALIKASAN

17 | P a g e
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Case: Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987 Constitution
4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M.
No.08-1- 16-SC]
Melissa C. Roxas v. President Macapagal- Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 189155, September 7,
2010
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn., Inc., 554 SCRA 208 (2008)
5. Writ of Habeas Data
Case: Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,2014
6. Writ of Kalikasan
Case: MMDA v. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18,
2008
VI. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT
A. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
Case: People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R. No. 187117, October 12, 2011
2. Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)
Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and
other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7 SC, August 28, 2009
B. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution
Case: Jesalva v. People, G.R. No. 187725, January 19, 2011
2. History of Miranda Rights/What Rights are Involved
Case: People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565 (1994)
3. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is
testimonial in nature)
4. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting and
information given is non-testimonial in nature)
5. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
Constitution
6. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4), Constitution
Cases: People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]
C. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the cour (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section
5)
Case: Juan Ponce-Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, August 18, 2015
2. Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses: Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople, G.R. No. 159618,
February 1, 2011
18 | P a g e
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and
the Production of Evidence in his behalf
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution
D. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and
Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Cases: Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 202 (2005)
E. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 1950, February 20, 2013
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January
18, 2011
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
Cases: People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006)
3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Case: Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010
4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
Case: Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011
F. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1),
Constitution
2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1),
Constitution
4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section
19(1) and (2), Constitution
6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
Case: People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
G. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011
2. When Retroactivity of the Law is allowed
Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
Valeroso v. People, supra

19 | P a g e
References: Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive
Reviewer (2011)
V. V. Mendoza, Bar Review Guide in Political Law (1987)
Enrique M. Fernando, The Constitution of the Philippines (1977)
Isagani M. Cruz, Political Law
Rene B. Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Volumes I and II (2006)
Miriam Defensor- Santiago, Constitutional Law(2005)
J. Midas Marquez, The Constitutional Philosophy of Philippine Jurisprudence (2005)
Antonio B. Nachura, Outline in Political Law Review (2006)

20 | P a g e

Você também pode gostar