which the powers of sovereignty are
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Political Law defined. That branch of
public law which deals with the
organization ,and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and
defines the relations of the State with the
inhabitants of its territory [People v.
Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887; Macariola v.
Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77].
B. Scope/Divisions of Political Law.
1. Constitutional Law. The study of the
maintenance of the proper balance
between authority as represented by the
three inherent powers of the State and
liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
[Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1993 ed., p. 1].
2. Administrative Law. That branch of
public law which fixes the organization of
government, determines the competence
of the administrative authorities who
execute the law, and indicates to the
individual remedies for the violation of his
rights.
3. Law on Municipal Corporations.
4. Law of Public Officers.
5. Election Laws.
C. Basis of the Study.
1. 1987 Constitution
2. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions
3. Other organic laws made to apply to
the Philippines, e.g., Philippine Bill of
1902, Jones Law of 1916, and Tydings-
McDuffie Law of 1934.
4. Statutes, executive orders and
decrees, and judicial decisions
5. U.S. Constitution.
A. Nature of the Constitution.
1 Constitution defined. That body of
rules and maxims in accordance with
habitually exercised [Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, p. 4]. With
particular reference to the Constitution of
the Philippines: That written instrument
enacted by direct action of the people by
which the fundamental powers of the
government are established, limited and
defined, and by which those powers are
distributed among the several
departments for their safe and useful
exercise for the benefit of the body politic
[Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law,
p. 6].
Classification: Kinds of Constitution.
a)Written or unwritten. Awritten
constitution is one whose precepts
areembodied in one document or set of
documents; while an unwritten
constitution consists of rules which have
not been integrated into a single, concrete
form but are scattered in various sources,
such as statutes of a fundamental
character, judicial decisions,
commentaries of publicists, customs and
traditions, and certain common law
principles [Cruz, Constitutional Law, pp.
4-5].
b)Enacted (Conventional) or Evolved
(Cumulative^. A conventionalconstitution
is enacted, formally struck off at a definite
time and place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by a constituent
body or ruler; while a cumulative
constitution is the result of political
evolution, not inaugurated at any specific
time but changing by accretion rather than
by any systematic method [Cruz, ibid., p.
5].
c)Rigid or Flexible. A rigid Constitution is
one that can be amended onlyby a formal
and usually difficult process; while a
flexible Constitution is one that can be
changed by ordinary legislation [Cruz,
ibid., p. 5].
Essential parts of a good written
Constitution:
a) Constitution of Liberty. The series of
prescriptions setting forth the fundamental
civil and political rights of the citizens and
imposing limitations on the powers of
government as a means of securing the
enjoyment of those rights, e.g., Art. III.
b) Constitution of Government. The series
of provisions outlining the organization of
the government, enumerating its powers,
laying down certain rules relative to its
administration, and defining the
electorate, e.g., Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX.
c) Constitution of Sovereignty. The
provisions pointing out the mode or
procedure in accordance with which
formal changes in the fundamental law
may be brought about, e.g., Art. XVII.
Amendment vs. Revision.
a) Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153,
October 25, 2006, enumerates the
distinctions between revision and
amendment, as follows: Revision broadly
implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the Constitution, like altering
the principle of separation of powers or
the system of checks and balances.
There is also revision if the change alters
the substantial entirety of the Constitution.
On the other hand, amendment broadly
refers to a change that adds, reduces,
deletes, without altering the basic
principle involved. Revision generally
affects several provisions of the
Constitution; while amendment generally
affects only the specific provision being
amended.
Steps in the amendatory process:
a) Proposal [Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII]. The
adoption of the suggested change in the
Constitution. A proposed amendment may
come from:
i.) Congress, by a vote of % of all its
members. Majority of authorities opine
that this is to be understood as 3/4 of the
Senate and 3/4 of the House of
Representatives.
ii) Constitutional Convention, which may
be called into existence either by a 2/3
vote of all the members of Congress, or (if
such vote is not obtained) by a majority
vote of all the members of Congress with
the question of whether or not to call a
Convention to be resolved by the people
in a plebiscite [Sec. 3, Art. XVII].
iii) People, through the power of initiative
[Sec. 2, Art. XVI/]. Requisite: A petition of
at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by
at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.
Referendum vs. Plebiscite.
Referendum is the power of the electorate
to approve or reject legislation through an
election called for the purpose. It may be
of two classes, namely: referendum on
statutes which refers to a petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part
thereof, passed by Congress; and
referendum on local law which refers to a
petition to approve or reject a law,
resolution or ordinance enacted by
regional assemblies and local legislative
bodies. Plebiscite is the electoral process
by which an initiative on the Constitution
is approved or rejected by the people
[Sec. 2 (c) and (e), Republic Act No.
6735].
The Power of Judicial Review.
Judicial Review: The power of the courts
to test the validity of executive and
legislative acts in light of their conformity
with the Constitution. This is not an
assertion of superiority by the courts over
the other departments, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the
Constitution [Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139]. The duty
remains to assure that the supremacy of
the Constitution is upheld [Aquino v.
Enrile, 59 SCRA 183]. The power is
inherent in the Judicial Department, by
virtue of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
a) That duty is part of the judicial power
vested in the courts by an express grant
under Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the Constitution
which states: “Judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of Government”
Who may exercise the power. Sec. 4(2),
Art. VIII of the Constitution recognizes the
power of the Supreme Court to decide
constitutional questions. On the issue of
whether the power can be exercised by
lower courts
Requisites of Judicial Review/lnquiry:
a) Actual case or controversy. A conflict
of legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims which can be resolved on the
basis of existing law and jurisprudence
[Guingona v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
125532, July 10, 1998],
b) The constitutional question must be
raised bv the proper party. A proper
party is one who has sustained or is in
imminent danger of sustaining an injury
as a result of the act complained of. To be
a proper party, one must have “legal
standing”, or locus standi.
Facial challenge. The established rule is
that a party can question the validity of a
statute only if, as applied to him, it is
unconstitutional. The exception is the so-
called ‘facial challenge”. But the only time
a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is
when it operates in the area of freedom of
expression.
c)The constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible
opportunity. In Matibag v. Benipayo,
G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002, it was
held that the earliest opportunity to raise a
constitutional issue is to raise it In the
pleadings before a
competent court that can resolve the
same, such that, If not raised in the
pleadings, it cannot be
considered at the trial and, if not
considered in the trial, it cannot be
considered on appeal.
Effects of Declaration of
Unconstitutionality. Two views:
- a) Orthodox view: An unconstitutional
act is not a law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is
inoperative, as if it had not been passed
at all. See Art. 7, Civil Code of the
Philippines.
b)Modern view: Courts simply refuse to
recognize the law anddetermine the rights
of the parties as if the statute had no
existence. See: Manila Motors v. Flores,
99 Phil. 738; Serrano de Agbayani v.
PNB, 35 SCRA 429; Republic v. Henda,
119 SCRA 411. Certain legal effects of
the statute prior to its declaration of
unconstitutionality may be recognized.
See: Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA
569. Thus, a public officer who
implemented an unconstitutional law prior
to the declaration of unconstitutionality
cannot be held liable [Ynot v. IAC, supra],
Partial Unconstitutionality. Requisites:
a)The Legislature must be willing to retain
the valid portion(s), usuallyshown by the
presence of a separability clause in the
law; and
b)The valid portion can stand
independently as law. See: In
Re:Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534; Salazar v.
Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145.
THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
Definition of a State. A community of
persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion
of territory, independent of external
control, and possessing a government to
which a great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience. See: Collector of
Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, 42
SCRA 23. •
1. Distinguished from Nation. State is a
legal or juristic concept, while nation is an
ethnic or racial concept.
2. Distinguished from Government.
Government is merely an instrumentality
of the State through which the will of the
State is implemented and realized.
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE
STATE
A. General Principles
1.The inherent powers of the State are:
(a) Police Power; (b) Power ofEminent
Domain; and (c) Power of Taxation
2.Similarities:
a)Inherent in the State, exercised even
without need of expressconstitutional
grant.
b)Necessary and indispensable; State
cannot be effective without them.
c)Methods by which State interferes with
private property.
d)Presuppose equivalent compensation
e)Exercised primarily by the Legislature.
3.Distinctions:
a)Police power regulates both liberty and
property; eminent domainand taxation
affect only property rights.
b) Police power and taxation are
exercised only by government;eminent
domain may be exercised by private
entities.
c) Property taken in police power is
usually noxious or intended for anoxious
purpose and may thus be destroyed;
while in eminent domain and taxation, the
property is wholesome and devoted to
public use or purpose.
D) Compensation in police power is the
intangible, altruistic feeling thatthe
individual has contributed to the public
good; in eminent domain, it is the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken; while
in taxation, it is the protection given
and/or public improvements instituted by
government for the taxes paid. 5
5.Limitations: Generally, the Bill of Rights,
although in some cases the exercise of
the power prevails over specific
constitutional guarantees. The courts may
annul the improvident exercise of police
power, e.g., in Quezon City v. Ericta, 122
SCRA 759 and in Philippine Press
Institute v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272.
Police Power
1.Definition. The power of promoting
public welfare by restraining
andregulating the use of liberty and
property.
2.Scope/Characteristics: Police power is
the most pervasive, the leastlimitable, and
the most demanding of the three powers.
The justification is found in the Latin
maxims: salus populi est suprema lex,
and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
a)Police power cannot be bargained away
through the medium of atreaty or a
contract [Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S.
814; Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil.
1155].
b)The taxing power may be used as an
implement of police power [Lutzv.Araneta,
98 Phil. 148; Tiu v. Videogram Regulatory
Board, 151 SCRA 208;Gaston v. Republic
Planters Bank, 158 SCRA 626; Osmena
v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703].
c) Eminent domain may be used as an
implement to attain the policeobjective
[Association of Small Landowners v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA
343].
Limitations (Tests for Valid Exercise):
a) Lawful subject:
The interests of the public in qeneral
.as distinquished from those of a
particular class, require the exercise of
the power. This means that the activity
or property sought to be regulated
affects the general welfare; if it does,
then the enjoyment of the rights
flowing therefrom may have to yield to
the interests of the greater number.
See.Taxicab Operators v. Board of
Transportation, 119 SCRA 597;
Velasco v. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568;
Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329;
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323;
Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 176 SCRA 719.
b) Lawful Means:
The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose, and not unduly
oppressive on individuals. See: Ynotv.
Intermediate Appellate Court,
148SCRA 659; Tablarin v. Gutierrez,
152 SCRA 730; Balacuit v. CFI of
Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182.
Power of Eminent Domain
1. Definition/Scope. Also known as the
power of expropriation,
A) See: Sec. 9, Art. Ill; Sec. 18, Art. XII;
Secs. 4 & 9, Art. XIII.
b) Distinguished from police power. Police
power is the power of the State to
promote public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property.
The power of eminent domain is the
inherent right of the State to condemn
private property to public use upon
payment of just compensation.
Although both police power and eminent
domain have the general welfare for their
object, and recent trends show a mingling
of the two with the latter being used as an
implement of the former, there are still
traditional distinctions between the two.
Property condemned under police power
is usually noxious or intended for a
noxious purpose, hence no compensation
is paid. Likewise in the exercise of police
power, property rights of individuals are
subjected to restraints and burdens in
order to secure the general comfort,
health and prosperity of the State. Where
a property interest is merely restricted
because the continued use thereof would
be injurious to public interest, there is no
compensable taking. However, when a
property interest is appropriated and
applied to some public purpose, there is
need to pay just compensation. In the
exercise of police power, the State
restricts the use of private property, but
none of the property interests in the
bundle of rights which constitute
ownership is appropriated for use by or
for the benefit of the public. Use of the
property by the owners is limited, but no
aspect of the property is used by or for
the benefit of the public. The deprivation
of use can, in fact, be total, and it will not
constitute compensable taking if nobody
else acquires use of the property or any
interest therein.
Who may exercise the power. Congress
and, by delegation, thePresident,
administrative bodies, local government
units, and even private enterprises
performing public services.
Requisites for exercise:
a) Necessity
i)When the power is exercised by the
Legislature, the question ofnecessity is
generally a political question [Municipality
of Meycauayan, Bulacan v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 640]; but
when exercised by a delegate, the
determination of whether there is genuine
necessity for the exercise is a justiciable
question [Republic v. La Orden de Po.
Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649].
b) Private Property
i)Private property already devoted to
public use cannot beexpropriated by a
delegate of legislature acting under a
general grant of authority [City of Manila
v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil 349].
ii) \All private property capable of
ownership may be expropriated,except
money and choses in action. Even
services may be subject to eminent
domain [Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA
620].
c) Taking in the constitutional sense.
i) May include trespass without actual
eviction of the owner, material impairment
of the value of the property or prevention
of the ordinary uses for which the property
was intended. In Ayala de Roxas v. City
of Manila, 9 Phil 215, the imposition of an
easement of a 3-meter strip on the
plaintiff’s property was considered taking.
In People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil 44, a
municipal ordinance prohibiting a building
which would impair the view of the plaza
from the highway was likewise considered
taking. In these cases, it was held that the
property owner was entitled to payment of
just compensation.
In Republic v. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336, the
Supreme Court enumerated the following
requisites for valid taking: the expropriator
must enter a private property; entry must
be for more than a momentary period;
entry must be under warrant or color of
authority; property must be devoted to
public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected; and
utilization of the property must be in such
a way as to oust the owner and deprive
him of beneficial enjoyment of the
property.
d) Public use.
i) Concept. As a requirement for eminent
domain, “public use” is thegeneral
concept of meeting public need or public
exigency. It is not confined to actual use
by the public in its traditional sense. The
idea that “public use” is strictly limited to
clear cases of “use by the public” has
been abandoned. The term “public use”
has now been held to be synonymous
with “public interest”, “public benefit”,
“public welfare”, and “public convenience”
[Reyes v. National Housing Authority,
G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003].
e) Just compensation.
i)Concept. The full and fair equivalent of
the property taken; it is thefair market
value of the property. It is settled that the
market value of the property is “that sum
of money which a person, desirous but
not compelled to buy, and an owner,
willing but not compelled to sell, would
agree on as a price to be given and
received therefor”.
Just compensation means not only the
correct amount to be paid to the owner of
the land but also payment within a
reasonable time from its taking
[Eslaban v. De Onorio, G.R. No. 146062,
June 28, 2001].
f) Due process of law.
The defendant must be given an
opportunityto be heard. In Belenv. Court
of Appeals, supra., the Supreme Court
declared PDs 1670 and 1669
unconstitutional for violating the due
process clause because the decrees do
not provide for any form of hearing or
procedure by which the petitioners can
question the propriety of the expropriation
or the reasonableness of the
compensation to be paid for the property.
See also Filstream International, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 716.
4. Writ of Possession. The issuance of the
writ of possession becomes ministerial
upon the [i] filing of a complaint for
expropriation sufficient in form and
substance, and [ii] upon deposit made by
the government of the amount equivalent
to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market
value of the property sought to be
expropriated per current tax declaration
[Biglang-Awa v. Judge Bacalla, G.R. Nos.
139927-139936, November 22, 2000;
Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba,
Laguna, supra.]. The determination of
whether the taking of the property is for a
public purpose is not a condition
precedent before the court may issue a
writ of possession. Once the requisites
mentioned above are established, the
issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial
matter for the expropriation court [Francia,
Jr. v. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R.
No 170432, March 24, 2008].
a) A hearing will have to be held to
determine whether or not the expropriator
complied with the requirements of R.A.
7279. It is, therefore, premature for the
Court of Appeals to insist on finding
whether petitioner resorted to the other
modes of acquisition provided in RA
7279, as this question will have to await
the hearing on the complaint itself [City of
Manila v. Serrano, G.R. No. 142302, June
20, 2001]. This hearing, however, is not a
hearing to determine if a writ of
possession is to be issued, but whether
there was compliance with the
requirements for socialized housing. Once
the two requisites above are complied
with, then the writ of possession shall
issue as a ministerial duty [City of Iloilo v.
Judge Legaspi, G.R. No. 154616,
November 25, 2004].
5. Plaintiff’s right to dismiss the complaint
in eminent domain. In
expropriation cases, there is no such
thing as the plaintiff’s “matter-of-right” to
dismiss the complaint, precisely because
the landowner may have already suffered
damages at the start of the taking. The
plaintiff’s right to dismiss the complaint
has always been subject to Court
approval and to certain conditions
[National Power Corporation & Pobre v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No 106804 August
12, 2004]. ’ 6
Expropriation under Sec. 18, Art. XII: “The
State may, in the interest ofnational
welfare or defense, establish and operate
vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private
enterprises to be operated by the
Government”.
Power of Taxation
1.Definition; nature and scope of power.
2.Who may exercise. Primarily, the
legislature; also: local legislative
bodies[Sec. 5, Art. X, Constitution]; and to
a limited extent, the President when
granted delegated tariff powers [Sec. 28
(2), Art. VI],
3.Limitations on the exercise.
a)Due process of law: tax should not be
confiscatory.
i)With the legislature primarily lies the
discretion to determine thenature, object,
extent, coverage and situs of taxation. But
where a tax
measure becomes so unconscionable
and unjust as to amount to confiscation of
property, courts will not hesitate to strike it
down, for despite all its plenitude, the
power to tax cannot override
constitutional prescriptions. This
postulate, however, has not been
demonstrated in the challenge to the
constitutionality of the Simplified Net
Income Taxation Scheme (SNITS) [Tan v.
del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324].
b) Equal protection clause: Taxes should
be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28 (1), Art.
VI].
c) Public purpose. See: Pascual v.
Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, infra..
i) Tax for special purpose [Sec. 29 (3),
Art. VI]: Treated as a special fund and
paid out for such purpose only; when
purpose is fulfilled, the balance, if any,
shall be transferred to the general funds
of the Government. See: Osmena v.
Orbos, 220 SCRA 703.
4. Double Taxation. Additional taxes are
laid on the same subject by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing
period and for the same purpose. See:
Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila, 95
Phil 46.
a) Despite lack of specific constitutional
prohibition, double taxation will not be
allowed if the same will result in a
violation of the equal protection clause.
5. Tax Exemptions. Requisite: 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, Constitution].
a) Sec. 28 (31 Art. VI: Charitable
institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries,
and all lands, buildings and
improvements, actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious, charitable
or educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxation.
b) Sec. 4 (3) Art. XIV: All revenues and
assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions used actually,
directly and exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxes and
duties, x x x Proprietary educational
institutions, including those co-operatively
owned, may likewise be entitled to such
exemptions subject to the limitations
provided by law including restrictions on
dividends and provisions for reinvestment.
a) License fee v. Tax
i) License fee is a police measure; tax is a
revenue measure.
ii) Amount collected for a license fee is
limited to the cost of permit and
reasonable police regulation [except when
the license fee is imposed on a non-useful
occupation, as in Physical Therapy
Organization v. Municipal Board of
Manila, infra.]; amount of tax may be
unlimited provided it is not confiscatory.
iii) License fee is paid for the privilege of
doing something, and may be revoked
when public interest so requires; Tax is
imposed on persons or property for
revenue. See: Compania General de
Tabacos v. City of Manila, 8 SCRA 367.
b) Kinds of license fee
i) For useful occupations or enterprises.
ii) For non-useful occupations or
enterprises. When a license fee is
imposed in order to discourage non-useful
occupations or enterprises, the amount
imposed may be a bit exorbitant [Physical
Therapy Organization v. Municipal Board
of Manila, infra.].
Due Process of Law. fSec. 1. Art. Ill:
“No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process
of law x xx “.]
“A law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial”
Meaning of life, liberty and property.
a)Life includes the right of an individual to
his body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use
of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable [Justice Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law, pp. 320321]. See:
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200.
b)Liberty includes “the right to exist and
the right to be free from arbitrary personal
restraint or servitude, x x x (It) includes
the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways x x x” [Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660],
c)Property is anything that can come
under the right of ownership andbe the
subject of contract. It represents more
than the things a person owns; it includes
the right to secure, use and dispose of
them [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 U.S.
197]. i)
Who are protected. Universal in
application to all persons, without regard
to any difference in race, color or
nationality. Artificial persons are covered
by the protection but only insofar as their
property is concerned
Administrative due process.
In Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil 635, the
Courtenumerated the requisites of
administrative due process, as follows: (a)
The right to a hearing, which includes the
right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof; (b) The
tribunal must consider the evidence
presented; (c) The decision must have
something to support itself; (d) The
evidence must be substantial; (e) The
decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties; (f) The tribunal or
any of its judges must act on its or his
own independent consideration of the
facts and the law of the controversy, and
not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
(g) The board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the parties
to the proceeding will know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the
decision.
a)Due process in quasi-judicial
proceedings before the Comelec
requires notice and hearing. The
proclamation of a winning candidate
cannot be annulled if he has not been
notified of any motion to set aside his
proclamation. In Namil v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 150540, October 28, 2003, the
Comelec issued the questioned order
annulling the proclamation on the basis of
private respondent’s allegations and the
recommendation of the law department,
without giving notice to the candidate
proclaimed. Thus, the Comelec order was
declared void.
Criminal due process
a) In Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA
457, the Supreme Court
enumerated the ingredients of due
process as applied to criminal
proceedings, as follows:
 (i) The accused has been heard in
a court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) The accused is proceeded
against under the orderly
processes of law;
(iii) The accused has been given
notice and the opportunity to be
heard; and
(iv) The judgment rendered was
within the authority of a
constitutional law.
b) Unreasonable delay in resolving
complaint. In Roque v.
Ombudsman,G.R. No. 129978,
May 12, 1999, it was held that the
failure of the Office of the
Ombudsman to resolve a
complaint that had been pending
for six years clearly violates the
constitutional command for the
Ombudsman to act promptly on
complaints and the right of the
petitioner to due process of law
and to speedy trial. In such event,
the aggrieved party is entitled to
the dismissal of the complaint. A
similar ruling was made in
Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 108595, May 18, 1999, and in
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, 159
SCRA 70, where it was held that
the unreasonable delay in the
termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan
violated the due process clause.
Searches and seizures.
fSec. 2. Art. Ill: “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 a judge,
after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, particularly
describing the place to be searched, or
the persons or things to the seized. ’]
Scope of the protection.
a)The protection is available to all
persons, including aliens,
whetheraccused of a crime or not.
Artificial persons are also entitled to the
guarantee, although they may be required
to open their books of accounts for
examination by the State in the exercise
of police and taxing powers. See
Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 Phil 1.
b)The right is personal; it may be invoked
only by the person entitled toit [Stonehill
v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383]. As such, the
right may be waived [Lopez v.
Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA
320], either expressly or impliedly [People
v. Malasugui, infra.], but the waiver must
be made by the person whose right is
invaded, not by one who is not duly
authorized to effect such waiver [People
v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457].
Scope
(1) Natural Persons
It protects all persons including aliens
[Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
(1963)]
(2) Artificial Persons
Artificial persons (e.g. corporations) are
protected to a limited extent. [Bache and
Co. Inc. v. Ruiz (1971)] The opening of
their account books is not protected, by
virtue of police and taxing powers of the
State.
B. WARRANT REQUIREMENT
Purpose
(1) Search Warrant – to gain evidence to
convict
(2) Warrant of Arrest – to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused
The warrant must refer to one specific
offense. [Castro v. Pabalan (1976)]
The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law
that deals specifically with dangerous
drugs which are subsumed into
“prohibited” and “regulated” drugs, and
defines and penalizes categories of
offenses which are closely related or
which belong to the same class or species;
thus, one search warrant may be validly
issued for several violations thereof. [People
v. Dichoso (1993)]
Search Warrant – an order in writing, issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge or justice of peace, directed
to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property and bring it before the
court.
Requisites (Search Warrant):
(a) Existence of probable cause
Probable cause – such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that (a)
an offense has been committed and that (b)
the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be
searched. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff (1984)]
Cf. for Warrant of Arrest – such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that (a) a
crime has been committed and (b) the person
to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.
[Allado v. Diokno (1994)]
(b) Determination of probable cause
personally by the judge.
On determining probable cause: The
magistrate must make an exhaustive and
probing examination of witnesses and
applicant and not merely routine or pro forma
examination [Nala v. Barroso, Jr. (2003)]
The determination of probable cause calls for
an exercise of judgment after a judicial
appraisal of the facts and should not be
allowed to be delegated in the absence of any
rule to the contrary.
(c) After personal examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce.
How it is done:
In the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath [Rule 126,
Sec. 6, ROC]
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are thus not sufficient.
The examining Judge has to take
depositions in writing of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce and attach
them to the record.
Such written deposition is necessary in
order that the Judge may be able to properly
determine the existence or non-existence of
the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury
the person giving it if it will be found later that
his declarations are false.
It is axiomatic that the examination must be
probing and exhaustive, not merely routine or
pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to
be established.
There must be a conduct of own inquiry
regarding intent and justification of the
application
The examining magistrate must not simply
rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
make his own inquiry on the intent and
justification of the application. [Roan v.
Gonzales (1984)]
Oath – any form of attestation that he is
bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully or truthfully; an outward pledge given
by the person taking it that his attestation or
promise is made under an immediate sense
of his responsibility to God
Requisites:
(a) Must refer to facts
(b) Such facts are of personal knowledge of
the petitioner or applicant or witnesses. Not
hearsay.
Test of sufficiency of an oath
“Whether or not it was drawn in a manner that
perjury could be charged against the affiant
and he be held liable for damages.”
(d) On the basis of their personal knowledge
of the facts they are testifying to. [Nala v.
Barroso, Jr. (2003); Burgos v. AFP (1984);
Roan v. Gonzales (1986); People v.
Malmstead (1991)]
The purpose of having personal knowledge
by the complainant and witnesses and the
sufficiency of the warrant is to convince the
magistrate seeking the issuance of the
warrant that there is probable cause.
(e) The warrant must describe particularly the
place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
Requirement is primarily meant to enable the
law enforcers serving the warrant to
(1) readily identify the properties to be seized
and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong
items; and (2) leave said peace officers with
no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable
searches and seizures. [People v. Tee
(2003)]
Place to Be Searched
The search warrant issued to search
petitioner’s compound for unlicensed firearms
was held invalid for failing to describe the
place with particularity, considering that the
compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15
plants, 84 staff houses, one airstrip etc.
spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v.
Asuncion (1999)]
Description of Place/Things
The description of the property to be seized
need not be technically accurate or precise.
Its nature will vary according to whether the
identity of the property is a matter of concern.
The description is required to be specific only
insofar as the circumstances will allow. [Kho
v. Judge Makalintal (1999)]
A search warrant may be said to particularly
describe the things to be seized when the
(a) description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v.
Rubio, 57 Phil 384]; or
(b) when the description expresses a
conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the
search and seizure; or (3) when the tings
described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued. [Bache and Co. v.
Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823]
General Rule: the warrant must contract
the particular place to be searched and
person or thing to be seized.
Exception: If the nature of the goods to be
seized cannot be particularly determined.
the nature of the thing is general in
description
the thing is not required of a very technical
description [Alvarez v. CFI (1937)]
Description of Persons Searched
Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in
the name of the persons to be searched. The
authorities conducted surveillance and test-
buy operations before obtaining the search
warrant and subsequently implementing it.
They had personal knowledge of the identity
of the persons and the place to be searched,
although they did not specifically know the
names of the accused. [People v. Tiu Won
Chua (2003)]
A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is
nothing to prevent issue and service of
warrant against a party whose name is
unknown. [People v. Veloso (1925)]
General Warrant – one that:
(1) Does not describe with particularity the
things subject of the search and seizure; or
(2) Where probable cause has not been
properly established.
Effect: It is a void warrant. [Nolasco v. Paño
(1985)]
Exception to General Warrants: General
descriptions will not invalidate the entire
warrant if other items have been particularly
described. [Uy v. BIR (2000)]
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
General rule: Probable cause required.
“The essential requisite of probable cause
must still be satisfied before a warrantless
search and seizure can be lawfully
conducted.” In these cases, probable cause
(warrantless searches) must be “based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that
a crime has been committed or is about to be
committed.” [People v. Aruta (1998)]
N.B. In Aruta, the standards for probable
cause are different from those required for the
issuance of warrants. Aruta implies that the
reasonableness of a warrantless search is
determined by the
(1) information received and used as a basis
for the search, and
(2) additional factors and circumstances. The
two, taken together, constitute the probable
cause which justifies warrantless searches
and seizures. [Aruta, supra]
Warrantless Searches Recognized By
Jurisprudence
Quick Look [People v. Aruta, supra]
(1) Search incidental to a lawful arrest (ROC
Rule 113, Sec. 5)
(2) Plain view doctrine
(3) Search of a moving vehicle
(4) Consented warrantless search (waiver of
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures)
(5) Customs search
(6) Stop and frisk
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances
(1) Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of
the commission of an offense, without a
search warrant. [Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules
of Court]
Test for validity
(1) Item to be searched was within the
arrester’s custody;
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the
arrest
Under the Rules of Court, a person charged
with an offense may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may
be used as proof of the commission of the
offense. As an incident of an arrest, the
premises where the arrest was made can also
be searched without search warrant. [Nolasco
v. Cruz Paño (1985)]
An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically
follows that the subsequent search was
similarly illegal.” [People v. Aruta, supra]
Arresting officer may search: [Chimel v.
California (1969)]
(1) The arrestee’s person to:
(a) discover or weapons and
(b) Seize evidence to prevent concealment or
destruction; and
(2) The area within the immediate control of
the arrestee, i.e. area from which he might
gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence.
Immediate control – immediate area to the
defendant’s person where there are nearby
weapons he could grab to attack the officer or
what he has in his pocket
It will be reasonable for officer to confiscate
whatever may be used to threaten his life or
limb.
People v. Aruta (1998)
Short facts: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by an
informant that a certain Aling Rosa Aruta will
arrive from Baguio with large volume of
marijuana with her via bus which the
informant identified. Aruta descended from
the bus, informant points finger at her and
police asked if they could open her bag and
check contents. They found it contained dried
marijuana leaves and a bus ticket – such
were brought to NARCOM office. Olongapo
RTC convicted her in violation of DDA. Court
ruled that it was NOT a reasonable search
because there was no probable cause for
search incidental to a lawful arrest.
(2) Plain View Doctrine
– things seized are within plain view of a
searching party.
Requisites:
(a) Prior valid intrusion based on valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they
are
(c) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search [People v.
Aruta, supra; N.B. substantially the same as
Nala v. Barroso requirements]
An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Where the seized
object is inside a closed package, the object
is not in plain view and, therefore, cannot be
seized without a warrant. However, if the
package
proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
its contents are obvious to an observer, then
the content are in plain view, and may be
seized. [Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)]
If the package is such that it contains
prohibited articles, then the article is deemed
in plain view. [People v. Nuevasm (2007)]
(3) Search of Moving Vehicles
Securing a search warrant is not practicable
since the vehicle can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought. [Papa v. Mago (1968)]
“Stop and search” without a warrant at military
or police checkpoints has been declared not
to be illegal per se so long as it is required by
exigencies of public order and conducted in a
way least intrusive to motorists. [Valmonte v.
de Villa (1989)]
For a mere routine inspection, the search is
normally permissible when it is limited to a
mere visual search, where the occupants are
not subjected to physical or body search. On
the other hand, when the vehicle is stopped
and subjected to an extensive search, it would
be constitutionally permissible only if the
officers conducting the search had reasonable
or probable cause to believe, before the
search that either the motorist is a law
offender or they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
to be searched. [Caballes v. Court of Appeals
(2002); People v. Libnao (2003)]
(4) Valid Express Waiver Made Voluntarily
And Intelligently
Requisites:
(a) Must appear that right exists;
(b) Person involved had actual/ constructive
knowledge of the existence of such right;
(c) Said person had an actual interest to
relinquish the right. [Aruta, supra]
In this case, mere failure to object to the
search and seizure does not constitute a
waiver.
Right to be secure from unreasonable search
may be waived. Waiver may be express or
implied. When one voluntarily submits to a
search or consents to have it made of his
person/premises, he is precluded from later
complaining. [People v. KaguiMalasugui
(1936)]
There is presumption against waiver by the
courts. It is the State that has the burden of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the necessary consent was obtained and
that it was voluntarily and freely given.
[Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)]
When accused checked in his luggage as
passenger of a plane, he agreed to the
inspection of his luggage in accordance with
customs laws and regulations, and thus
waived any objection to a warrantless search.
[People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785]
(5) Customs Search
The police are allowed to conduct warrantless
searches in behalf of the Department of
Customs.
They are authorized to examine, open any
box, trunk, or other containers where he has
reasonable cause to believe that such items
were hidden from customs search. [People v.
Mago (1968)]
Sec. 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code
states that no warrant is required for police or
authorized persons to pass, enter, search any
land, enclosure, building, warehouse, vessels,
aircrafts, vehicles but not dwelling.
Purpose of customs search: To verify whether
or not Custom duties and taxes were paid for
their importation.
(6) Stop And Frisk Searches
There should be a genuine reason to “stop-
and-frisk in the light of the police officer’s
experience and surrounding conditions to
warrant a belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed. [Malacat v. CA (1997),
citing Terry v. Ohio]
Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on
street and pat him for a weapon in the interest
of protecting himself from the person with
whom he was dealing by making sure that he
is not armed.
The right of an agent, to protect himself and
others, to conduct a carefully limited search of
outer clothing of such persons as listed below
in an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him. Such search is
reasonable under the 4th amendment:
 (1) Where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in 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;
(2) Where in the course of the investigation of
this behavior he
identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries; and
(3) Where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable
fear for his own or other’s safety. [Terry v.
Ohio, 1968]
Test: WON a reasonably prudent man in the
circumstances would be warranted in the
belief that his safety or that of others was in
danger [Terry v. Ohio (1968)].
Guidelines of Stop and Frisk
[Manalili v. CA, 1997]
(1) When police officer observes unusual
conduct;
(2) This conduct leads him to believe, also in
light of his experience,that criminal activity
may be afoot
(3) The persons with whom he is dealing may
be armed and presently dangerous
(4) Also, in the course of investigating his
behavior of the man, after identifying himself
as a police officer – the man is entitled to a
limited search of outer clothing because:
(a) Fear of his own safety
(b) Fear of public’s safety that a crime might
ensue
The police officer should properly introduce
himself and make initial inquiries, approach
and restrain a person who manifests unusual
and suspicious conduct, in order to check the
latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed
weapons. The apprehending police officer
must have a genuine reason, in accordance
with the police officer’s experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person to be held has weapons or
contraband concealed about him [People v.
Sy Chua (2003)].
(7) Exigent And Emergency Circumstances
The raid and seizure of firearms and
ammunition at the height of the 1989 coup
d’état, was held valid, considering the exigent
and emergency situation. The military
operatives had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed, and they
had no opportunity to apply for a search
warrant from the courts because the latter
were closed. Under such urgency and
exigency, a search warrant could be validly
dispensed with. [People v. de Gracia, 233
SCRA 716].
Properties Subject To Seizure
General Rule: Only the articles particularly
described in the warrant may be seized.
(1) Property subject of an offense
(2) Stolen or embezzled property and other
proceeds or fruits of an offense
(3) Used or intended to be used as a means
of committing an offense [Sec. 2 Rule 126,
ROC]
Where the warrant authorized only the
seizure of shabu, and not marijuana, the
seizure of the latter was held unlawful.
[People v. Salanguit]
It is not necessary that the property to be
searched or seized should be owned by the
person against whom the warrant is issued; it
is sufficient that the property is within his
control or possession. [Burgos v. Chief of
Staff (1984)]
Comparison of Procedures in Obtaining
Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants Rule
112, Sec. 6.
When warrant of arrest may issue – (a) By
the Regional Trial Court – Within ten (10)
days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence. He may immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant
to a warrant issued by the judge who
conducted the preliminary investigation or
when the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of
doubt on the existence of probable cause, the
judge may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence (Note: This is not found in
the procedure for a search warrant) within five
(5) days from notice and the issue must be
resolved by the court within thirty (30) days
from the filing of the complaint of information.
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
Requisites for Issuance of a Valid Arrest
Warrant
What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause.
In satisfying himself of the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest, the judge is not required to
personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure,
he shall:
(1) Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause
and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of
arrest; or
(2) If he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable
cause.[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)]
Existence of Probable Cause: Such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested. [Webb v. De Leon
(1995)]
Determination of probable cause personally
by the judge as to warrant of arrest:
(1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal
knowledge of the facts they are testifying to.
(2) The arrest warrant must describe
particularly the person to be seized.
(a) By stating the name of the person to be
arrested.
(b) If not known, then a “John Doe warrant”
may be issued, with some descriptio
personae that will enable the officer to identify
the accused.
John Doe Warrant: Warrants issued against
50 John Does, none of whom the witnesses
could identify, were considered as “general
warrants” and thus void. [Pangandaman v.
Casar (1988)]
Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in
flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of
the person arrested and the premises within
his immediate control is valid as an incident to
a lawful arrest. [People v. Hindoy (2001)]
When not proper buy-bust: Instead of
arresting the suspect after the sale in a buy-
bust op, the officer returned to the police
headquarters and filed his report. It was only
in the evening that he, without warrant,
arrested the suspect at his house where dried
marijuana leaves were found and seized. This
is unlawful
Requisites of a Valid Warrantless Arrest
[Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal
Procedure]
(1) In flagrante delicto: When in his presence,
the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense
The person must be arrested after the offense
has been committed and in the presence of a
police officer. [People v. Mengote (1992)]
Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a
rebel may be arrested without a warrant at
any time of the day or the night as he is
deemed to be in the act of committing
rebellion. [Umil v. Ramos (1991)]
Though kidnapping with serious illegal
detention is deemed a continuing crime, it can
be considered as such only when the
deprivation of liberty is persistent and
continuing from one place to another.
[Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons (1968)]
(2) Hot Pursuit:
When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it
Requisites:
(a) Offense had just been committed;

The person must be immediately arrested
after the commission of the offense. [People
v. Manlulu (1994)]
(b) Person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge.
(c) Escaped Prisoners:
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another
Additional Exceptions (Not in the Rules):
(d) When the right is voluntarily waived
(estoppel).
Failure to raise the question of admissibility
during the trial is waiver of the right to assert
inadmissibility on appeal. [Manalili v. CA
(1997)]
Scope of Waiver: Waiver is limited to the
illegal arrest. It does not extend to the search
made as an incident thereto, or the
subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly
found during the search. [People v. Peralta
(2004)]
(e) Violent insanity
FINALS:
Q: Can a delegated power be re‐delegated?
A:
GR: No. Delegated power constitutes not only a right
but a duty to be performed by the delegate through
the instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another.
XPN: Permissible delegations: PETAL
1. Delegation to the People through initiative and
referendum. (Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
2. Emergency powers delegated by Congress to
the President. (Sec. 23, Art. VI)
The conditions for the vesture of emergency
powers are the following:
a. There must be war or other national emergency
b. The delegation is for a limited period only
c. Delegation is subject to restrictions as Congress may
prescribe
d. Emergency powers must be exercised to
carry a national policy declared by
Congress
3. Congress may delegate Tariff powers to the
President. (Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI)
Note: The Tariff and Customs Code is the
enabling law that grants such powers to the
president.
The power to impose tariffs in the first place is
not inherent in the President but arises only
from congressional grant. Thus, it is the
prerogative of Congress to impose limitations
and restrictions on such powers which do not
normally belong to the executive in the first
place. (Southern Cross Cement Corporation v.
Philippine Cement Manufacturing Corp., G.R.
No. 158540, Aug. 3, 2005)
4. Delegation to Administrative bodies – also
known as power of subordinate legislation.
Note: This refers to the authority vested by
Congress to the administrative bodies to “fill in
the details” which Congress cannot provide
due to lack of opportunity or competence.
Such includes the making of supplementary
rules and regulations. Such have the force and
effect of law.
5. Delegation to Local Governments – It is not
regarded as a transfer of general legislative
power, but rather as the grant of authority to
prescribe local regulations.
Note: Congress can only delegate, usually to
administrative agencies, Rule‐Making Power.
Q: What are the two tests of valid delegation?
A:
1. Completeness Test‐ law must be complete
in all essential terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature so that there will be
nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except to enforce it.
2. Sufficient Standard Test‐ if law does not
spell out in detail the limits of the delegate’s
authority, it may be sustained if delegation is
made subject to a sufficient standard.
Note: SUFFICIENT STANDARD – maps out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority and indicating
the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and
effected (purpose: prevent total transference of
legislative power).
 Note: INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER–If there are gaps that will prevent its
enforcement, delegate is given the
opportunity to step into the shoes of the
legislature and exercise discretion in order to
repair the omissions.
Q: What is the distinction between the President’s
authority to declare a state of national emergency and
her authority to exercise emergency powers?
A: The President’s authority to:
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Q: To what body is legislative power vested?
A:
GR: Congress
XPN: Powers reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
Q: What are the classes of legislative power?
ODeCO
Original: Possessed by the people in their sovereign
capacity i.e. initiative and referendum.
Delegated: Possessed by Congress and other legislative
bodies by virtue of the Constitution.
3. Constituent: The power to amend or revise the
Constitution.
4. Ordinary: The power to pass ordinary laws.
Q: What are the limitations on the legislative power of
Congress?
Substantive: limitations on the content of laws.
Procedural: limitations on the manner of passing laws.
3. Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws.
4. Congress, as a general rule, cannot delegate its
legislative power.
Note: The Congress of the Philippines is a bicameral
body composed of a Senate and House of
Representatives, the first being considered as the
upper house and the second the lower house.
Q: What is Gerrymandering? Is it allowed?
A: Gerrymandering is the formation of one legislative
district out of separate territories for the purpose of
favoring a candidate or a party. It is not allowed
because the Constitution provides that each district
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact and adjacent territory
LEGISLATIVE POWER
Q: What are the legislative powers of Congress?
1. General plenary power (Sec. 1, Art. VI)
2. Specific power of appropriation
3. Taxation and expropriation
4. Legislative investigation
5. Question hour
Q: What is Legislative Power?
A: It is the power or competence of the legislative to
propose, enact, ordain, amend/alter, modify, abrogate
or repeal laws. It is vested in the Congress which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.
Q: What is an appropriation bill?
A: It is a bill, the primary and specific aim of which is to
appropriate a sum of money from the public treasury.
Note: A bill creating a new office, and appropriating
funds for it is not an appropriation bill.
Q: What is a revenue bill?
A: A revenue bill is one specifically designed to raise
money or revenue through imposition or levy.
Q: What is a bill of local application?
A: It is one which is limited to specific localities,
such as for instance the creation of a town (Bernas
Commentary, p. 748, 2003). Hence, it is one
involving purely local or municipal matters, like a
charter of a city.
Q: What are private bills?
A: Those which affect private persons, such as for
instance a bill granting citizenship to a specific foreigner
(Bernas Commentary, p.748, 2003).
Q: How are private bills illustrated?
A: They are illustrated by a bill granting honorary
citizenship to a distinguished foreigner (Cruz, Philippine
Political Law, p. 155, 1995).
Note: Every bill shall embrace only one subject, as
expressed in the title thereof, which does not have to
be a complete catalogue of everything stated in the
bill. A title expressing the general subject of the bill
and all the provisions of the statute are germane to the
general subject is sufficient.
Q: What is the power of appropriation?
A: The spending power, called the “power of the purse”
belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of
the President. It carries with it the power to specify the
project or activity to be funded under the appropriation
law.
Q: What is an appropriation law?
A: A statute, the primary and specific purpose of which
is to authorize release of public funds from the treasury.
Q: What is budget?
A: Financial program of the national government for the
designated calendar year, providing for the estimates of
receipts of revenues and expenditures.
Q: What are the classifications of appropriations?
A:
1. General appropriation law – passed annually,
intended for the financial operations of the entire
government during one fiscal period;
2. Special appropriation law – designed for a
specific purpose
Q: Who shall propose the budget?
A: The President shall propose the budget and submit
it to Congress. It shall indicate the expenditures,
sources of financing as well as receipts from previous
revenues and proposed revenue measures. It will serve
as a guide for Congress:
1. In fixing the appropriations;
2. In determining the activities which should be funded.
(Section 22, Art. VII)
Note: The propose subject is not final. It is subject
to the approval of Congress but the President may
exercise his or her veto power. Accordingly, the
power of the purse belongs to Congress, subject
only to the veto power of the President. The
President may propose the budget but still the final
say on the matter of appropriation is lodged in the
Congress. (Philippine Constitution Association v.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)
Q: May Congress modify the budget proposed by the
President?
A: Yes. However, Congress may only reduce but not
increase the budget.
Q: May Congress increase its outlay for itself, the
Judiciary and other Constitutional bodies?
A: No, because it is presumed that their needs have
already been identified while drafting the budget.
Note: Congress may not decrease the appropriation
for the Judiciary below the amount appropriated for
the previous year.
Q: When does a bill become a law?
1. Approved and signed by the President
2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 vote of all
members of both Houses
3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and to
return it with his objections to the House where it
originated, within 30 days after the date of receipt
4. A bill calling a special election for President and
Vice‐President under Sec. 10. Art. VII becomes a law
upon third reading and final reading
Q: May the President veto a law?
A: No. What the president may validly veto is only a bill
and neither the provisions of law 35 years before his
term nor a final and executory judgment of the
Supreme Court. (Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524,
April 15, 1992)
Q: When is there a pocket veto?
It occurs when:
1. the President fails to act on a bill; and
2. the reason he does not return the bill to the
Congress is that Congress is not in session.
Note: Pocket veto is not applicable in the Philippines
because inaction by the President for 30 days never
produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The
President must still act to veto the bill and
communicate his veto to Congress without need of
returning the vetoed bill with his veto message.
Q: Distinguish the between the power of expropriation
as exercised by Congress and the power of
expropriation as exercised by delegates.
A: When exercised by Congress, the power is pervasive
and all‐encompassing but when exercised by delegates,
it can only be broad as the enabling law and the
conferring authorities want it to be.
to the question of necessity, the same is a political
question when the power is exercised by Congress. On
the other hand, it is a judicial question when exercised
by delegates. The courts can determine whether there
is genuine necessity for its exercise, as well as the
value of the property.
Q: What are the Non‐legislative powers of Congress?
Power to declare the existence of state of war (Sec. 23
[1], Art. VI)
Power to act as Board of Canvassers in election of
President (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
Power to call a special election for President and Vice‐
President (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
Power to judge President’s physical fitness to discharge
the functions of the Presidency (Sec. 11, Art. VII)
Power to revoke or extend suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial
law (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
Power to concur in Presidential amnesties Concurrence
of majority of all the members of Congress (Sec. 19,
Art. VII)
Power to concur in treaties or international
agreements; concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the
members of the Senate (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
ower to confirm certain appointments/nominations
made by the President (Secs. 9 and 16, Art. VII)
ower of Impeachment (Sec. 2, Art. XI)
10. Power relative to natural resources (Sec. 2, Art.
XII)
11. Power of internal organization (Sec. 16, Art. VI)
a) Election of officers
b) Promulgate internal rules
c) Disciplinary powers (Sec. 16, Art. VI)
12. Informing Function
Q: State the conditions under which, during a period of
national emergency, Congress may grant emergency
powers to the President is allowed.
A: Under Sec. 23[2], Article VI of the
Constitution, Congress may grant the
President emergency powers subject to the
following conditions:
1. There is a war or other national emergency
2. The grant of emergency powers must be for
a limited period
3. The grant of emergency powers is subject to such
restrictions as Congress may prescribe
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry
out a declared national policy
Q: What is the policy of the Philippines regarding war?
A: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy. (Sec. 2, Art. II)
Q: What is the voting requirement to declare the
existence of a state of war?
2/3 of both Houses
2. In joint session
3. Voting separately
Note: Even though the legislature can declare existence
of war and enact measures to support it, the actual
power to engage war is lodged nonetheless in the
executive.
Q: Discuss the Informing function of Congress.
A: The informing function of the legislature includes its
function to conduct legislative inquiries and
investigation and its oversight power.
The power of Congress does not end with the finished
task of legislation. Concomitant with its principal power
to legislate is the auxiliary power to ensure that the laws
it enacts are faithfully executed. As well stressed by one
scholar, the legislature “fixes the main lines of
substantive policy and is entitled to see that
administrative policy is in harmony with it; it establishes
the volume and purpose of public expenditures and
ensures their legality and propriety; it must be satisfied
that internal administrative controls are operating to
secure economy and efficiency; and it informs itself of
the conditions of administration of remedial measure.”
The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in
the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the
checks and balances inherent in a democratic system
of government. Woodrow Wilson went one step
farther and opined that the legislature’s informing
function should be preferred to its legislative function.
He emphasized that “[E]ven more important than
legislation is the instruction and guidance in political
affairs which the people might receive from a body
which kept all national concerns suffused in a broad
daylight of discussion.” (Concurring and Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 157013 July 10, 2003)
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES AND LEGISLATIVE
PRIVILEGES
Q: What is immunity from arrest?
A: Legislators are privileged from arrest while Congress
is “in session” with respect to offenses punishable by up
to 6 years of imprisonment.
Q: What is the purpose of parliamentary immunities?
A: It is not for the benefit of the officials; rather, it is to
protect and support the rights of the people by ensuring
that their representatives are doing their jobs according
to the dictates of their conscience. It is indispensable no
matter how powerful the offended party is.
Q: May a congressman who committed an offense
punishable for not more than 6 years, but is not
attending session, be arrested?
A: No. So long as he is an incumbent congressman, and
so long as Congress is in session, whether or not he is
attending it, he shall be immune from arrest. (People of
the Philippines v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875‐76,
February 3, 2000).
Q: Can a senator‐lawyer be disbarred or disciplined by
the Supreme Court for statements made during a
privilege speech?
A: No. Indeed, the senator‐lawyer’s privilege speech is
not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding
under the Rules of Court. The Court, however, would be
remiss in its duty if it let the Senator’s offensive and
disrespectful language that definitely tended to
denigrate the institution pass by. It is imperative on the
Court’s part to re‐instill in Senator/Atty. Santiago her
duty to respect courts of justice, especially this Tribunal,
and remind her anew that parliamentary non‐
accountability thus granted to members of Congress is
not to protect them against prosecutions for their own
benefit, but to enable them, as the people’s
representatives, to perform the functions of their office
without fear of being made responsible before the
courts or other forums outside the congressional hall. It
is intended to protect members of congress against
government pressure and intimidation aimed at
influencing the decision‐making prerogatives of
Congress and its members. (Pobre v. Sen. Defensor‐
Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, Aug. 25, 2009)
Q: Is Congress considered in session during a recess?
A: No. It is not in session. During a recess, a
congressman who has committed an offense
punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment may
be arrested.
Q: Is there immunity from searches?
A: No. The Constitution provides only a privilege from
arrest in order to ensure the attendance of
Congressmen.
Q: What is legislative privilege?
A: No member shall be questioned or held liable in any
forum other than his/her respective Congressional body
for any debate or speech in Congress or in any
committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Article VI; Pobre v. Sen.
Santiago, A.C. No, 7399, August 25, 2009)
Q: What are the limitations on legislative privilege?
A: 1. Protection is only against forum other than
Congress itself. Thus, for defamatory remarks, which
are otherwise privileged, a member may be sanctioned
by either the Senate or the House as the case may be.
2. The “speech or debate” must be made in
performance of their duties as members of Congress.
Q: Can the Sandiganbayan order the preventive
suspension of a Member of the HoR being prosecuted
criminally for the violation of the Anti‐Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act?
A: Yes. In Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the Court held
that the accused cannot validly argue that only his peers
in the House of Representatives can suspend him
because the court‐ordered suspension is a preventive
measure that is different and distinct from the
suspension ordered by his peers for disorderly
behaviour which is a penalty. (Paredes, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, GR 118354, August 8, 1995)
Q: What are the two (2) requirements for the privilege
of Speech and Debate to be availed of?
A:
1. That the remarks must be made while the legislature
or the legislative committee is functioning, that is in
session
2. That they must be made in connection with the
discharge of official duties.
Q: What does speech or debate encompass?
A: It includes a vote or passage of a resolution, all the
utterances made by Congressmen in the performance
of their functions such as speeches delivered,
statements made, or votes casts in the halls of Congress.
It also includes bills introduced in Congress (whether or
not it is in session) and all the other utterances (made
outside or inside the premises of Congress) provided
they are made in accordance with a legislative function.
(Jimenez, v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L‐15905, August 3,
1966)
Note: The purpose of the privilege is to insure the
effective discharge of functions of Congress. The
privilege may be abused but it is said that such is not so
damaging or detrimental as compared to the denial or
withdrawal of such privilege.
Q: Does publication fall under the scope of speech?
A: No, not all the time. The same shall be made while
Congress is in session and not during its recess.
However, if publication is made when Congress is not
in session, it is not privileged because Congressman is
said to be not acting as congressman. (Jimenez, v.
Cabangbang, G.R. No. L‐15905, August 3, 1966)
LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION
Q: What does Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution
provide?
A: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by,
such inquiries shall be respected.
Note: “In aid of legislation” does not mean that there is pending
legislation regarding the subject of the inquiry. In fact,
investigation may be needed for purposes of proposing future
legislation.
If the stated purpose of the investigation is to determine he
existence of violations of the law, the investigation is no longer
“in aid of legislation” but “in aid or prosecution.” This violates the
principle of separation of powers and is beyond the scope of
Congressional powers.
Q: What is the scope of subject matter of the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation?
A: Indefinite. The field of legislation is very wide as compared
to that of the American Congress. And because of such, the
field of inquiry is also very broad. It may cover administrative
inquiries, social, economic, political problem (inquiries),
discipline of members, etc. Suffice it to say that it is co‐
extensive with legislative power. (Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R.
No. L‐3820, July 18, 1950)
Q: What are the limitations on legislative investigation?
A:
1. Constitutional rights to counsel and against self
incrimination – even if the investigation is not a criminal
investigation, the information divulge therein may be used in
criminal prosecution (Under Sec. 21, Art. VI, it is provided that
the rights of 1987 Constitution, the persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected)

2. The Rules of procedures to be followed in

such inquiries shall be published for the
guidance of those who will be summoned.
This must be strictly followed so that the
inquiries are confined only to the legislative
purpose. This is also to avoid abuses.

. 3. The investigation must be in aid of legislation.

4. Congress may not summon the President as

witness or investigate the latter in view of the
doctrine of separation of powers except in
impeachment cases.
note: It is the President’s prerogative to divulge or not the
information which he deems confidential or prudent in the
public interest.
Congress may no longer punish the witness in contempt after
its final adjournment. The basis of the power to impose such
penalty is the right to self‐preservation. And such right is
enforceable only during the existence of the legislature (Lopez
v. Delos Reyes G.R. No. L‐3436,1 Nov. 5, 1930).
6. Congress may no longer inquire into the same justiciable
controversy already before the court (Bengzon v. Blue Ribbon
Committee, G.R. No. 89914, Nov. 20, 1991)
Q: Does Congress have the power to cite persons in
contempt?
A: Yes. Even if the Constitution only provides that Congress
may punish its members for disorderly behavior or expel the
same, it is not an exclusion of power to hold other persons in
contempt.
Note: Congress has the inherent power to punish recalcitrant
witnesses for contempt, and may have them incarcerated until
such time that they agree to testify. The continuance of such
incarceration only subsists for the lifetime, or term, of such body.
Thus, each House lasts for only 3 years. But if one is incarcerated
by the Senate, it is indefinite because the Senate, with its
staggered terms, is a continuing body.
Q: Does the pardoning power of the President apply to cases
of legislative contempt?
A: No. It is a limitation on the President’s power to pardon by
virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Q: What is the so‐called ‘question hour’?
A: The heads of departments may upon their own initiative
with the consent of the President, or upon the request of
either House, as the rules of each house shall provide, appear
before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining
to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to
the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the HoR at least
3 days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations
shall not be limited to written questions, but it may cover
matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the
public interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted
in executive session (Sec. 22, Art.VI, 1987 Constitution)
Q: Distinguish question hour from legislative investigation.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Q: What is the purpose of executive clemency? Can it
be delegated?
A: Executive clemency is granted for the purpose of
relieving the harshness of the law or correcting mistakes
in the administration of justice. The power of executive
clemency is a non‐delegable power and must be
exercised by the President personally.
Note: Clemency is not a function of the judiciary; it is an
executive function. The grant is discretionary, and may
not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the
court, save only when it contravenes its limitations.
The power to grant clemency includes cases involving
administrative penalties.
In granting the power of executive clemency upon the
President, Sec. 19, Art. VII of the Constitution does not
distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.
If the President can grant pardons in criminal cases, with
more reason he can grant executive clemency in
administrative cases, which are less serious. (Llamas v.
Orbos, G.R. No. 99031, Oct. 15, 1991)
What is the scope of the President’s pardoning
power? (Forms of executive clemency)
The President may grant the following:
1. Pardons (conditional or plenary)
2. Reprieves
3. Commutations
4. Remission of fines and forfeitures
5. Amnesty
note: The first 4 require conviction by final judgment
while amnesty does not.
Are there limitations to the President’s pardoning
power? A: Yes. It:
1. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment.
2. Cannot be granted for violations of election laws
without favorable recommendations of the
COMELEC.
3. Can be granted only after convictions by final
judgment (except amnesty).
4. Cannot be granted in cases of civil or
legislative contempt.
5. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability.
6. Cannot restore public offices forfeited.
Q: What is pardon? What are its legal effects?
A: Pardon is an act of grace which exempts individual on
whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law
inflicts for a crime he has committed. As a consequence,
pardon granted after conviction frees the individual
from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores
him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly grounded
on the person’s innocence (which is rare), it cannot
bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair
dealing. (Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, Feb. 9,
1989)
Note: Because pardon is an act of grace, no legal
power can compel the President to give it. Congress
has no authority to limit the effects of the President’s
pardon, or to exclude from its scope any class of
offenders. Courts may not inquire into the wisdom or
reasonableness of any pardon granted by the
President.
Q: What are the kinds of pardon? What makes them
different from each other?
A:
1. Absolute pardon ‐ one extended without any
conditions
2. Conditional pardon ‐ one under which the convict is
required to comply with certain requirements
3. Plenary pardon ‐ extinguishes all the penalties
imposed upon the offender, including accessory
disabilities partial pardon does not extinguish all
penalties
4. Partial pardon ‐ does not extinguish all the penalties
Q: What is reprieve?
A: It is the postponement of sentence to a date certain,
or stay of execution.
Note: It may be ordered to enable the government to
secure additional evidence to ascertain the guilt of the
convict or, in the case of the execution of the death
sentence upon a pregnant woman, to prevent the killing
of her unborn child.
Q: What is commutation?
A: It is the reduction or mitigation of the penalty,
from death penalty to life imprisonment,
remittances and fines. Commutation is a pardon in
form but not in substance, because it does not affect his
guilt; it merely reduces the penalty for reasons of public
interest rather than for the sole benefit of the offender.
Note: Commutation does not have to be in any form.
Thus, the fact that a convict was released after 6 years
and placed under house arrest, which is not a penalty,
already leads to the conclusion that the penalty has
been shortened
Q: What is amnesty?
A: It is a grant of general pardon to a class of political
offenders either after conviction or even before the
charges are filed. It is the form of executive clemency
which under the Constitution may be granted by the
President only with the concurrence of the legislature.
Note: Thus, the requisites of amnesty are (a)
concurrence of a majority of all the members of
Congress and (b) a previous admission of guilt.
Q: What are the effects of the grant of amnesty?
A: Criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty;
the penalty and all its effects are thus extinguished.
Amnesty reaches back to the past and erases whatever
shade of guilt there was. In the eyes of the law, a
person granted amnesty is considered a new‐born
child.
MILITARY POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
“The President also serves as the Commander-
in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. This includes the power to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus and to
declare Martial law” ARTICLE 7, SECTION 1 of
the constitution.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
What is the concept and scope of protected freedom
of expression under the Constitution?
1.Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of the press
3. Right of assembly and to petition the government
for redress of grievances
4. Right to form associations or societies not contrary
to law
5. Freedom of religion
6. Right to access to information on matters of public
concern.
Q: What are considered protected speech?
A: Protected speech includes every form of expression,
whether oral, written, tape or disc recorded. It includes
motion pictures as well as what is known as symbolic
speech such as the wearing of an armband as a symbol
of protest. Peaceful picketing has also been included
within the meaning of speech.
Q: Does a violation of any law justify the suppression
of exercise of freedom of speech and of the press?
A: Not every violation of a law will justify
straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and
of the press. There are laws of great significance but
their violation, by itself and without more, cannot
support suppression of free speech and free press. The
totality of the injurious effects of the violation to
private and public interest must be calibrated in light
of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution
and by related international covenants protecting
freedom of speech and of the press. The need to
prevent the violation of a law cannot per se trump the
exercise of free speech and free press, a preferred
right whose breach can lead to greater evils. (Francisco
Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15,
2008)
Q. What is the concept behind the provision?
A. Consistent with its intended role in society, it means
that the people are kept from any undue interference
from the government in their thoughts and words. The
guarantee basically flows from the philosophy that the
authorities do not necessarily know what is best for
the people. (R.B. Gorospe, Constitutional Law: Notes
And Readings On The Bill Of Rights, Citizenship And
Suffrage 442 (2004)
What are the limitations of freedom of expression?
It should be exercised within the bounds of laws
enacted for the promotion of social interests and the
protection of other equally important individual rights
such as:
1. Laws against obscenity, libel and slander
(contrary to public policy)
2. .Right to privacy of an individual
3. Right of state/government to be protected
from seditious attacks
4. Legislative immunities
5. Fraudulent matters
6. Advocacy of imminent lawless conducts
7. Fighting words
1. Guarantee implies only the right to reach a willing
audience but not the right to compel others to
listen, see or read
What are the four aspects of freedom of speech and
press?
A:
1. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment
3. Freedom to access information
4. Freedom of Circulation
Q: Discuss the Doctrine of Fair Comment.
A: The doctrine provides that while as a general rule,
every discreditable public imputation is false because
every man is presumed innocent, thus every false
imputation is deemed malicious, as an exception,
when the discreditable imputation is directed against a
public person in his public capacity, such is not
necessarily actionable. For it to be actionable, it must
be shown that either there is a false allegation of fact
or comment based on a false supposition. However, if
the comment is an expression of opinion, based on
established facts; it is immaterial whether the opinion
happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably
be inferred from facts.
Q: Distinguish content‐neutral regulation from
content‐based restraint or censorship.
A:
CONTENT‐NEUTRAL REGULATION
Substantial governmental interest is required for their
validity, and they are not subject to the strictest form
of judicial scrutiny rather only an intermediate
approach‐ somewhere between the rationality that is
required of a law and the compelling interest standard
applied to content‐based restrictions.
CONTENT‐BASED RESTRAINT
They are given thestrictest scrutiny in light of their
inherent and invasive impact.
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
Q: What are the requisites of criminal due process?
A:
1. Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction
2. Accused is proceeded against under the orderly
processes of law
3. Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment rendered was within the authority of a
constitutional law
Q: Is right to appeal a part of due process?
A: The right to appeal is not a natural right or part of
due process. It is a mere statutory right, but once
given, denial constitutes violation of due process
Q: What is meant by bail?
A: It is the security given for the release of a person in
custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as
required.
Q: When may the right to bail be invoked?
A: The right to bail may be invoked once detention
commences even if no formal charges have yet to be
filed. (Teehankee v. Rovira, G.R.No. L‐101, Dec. 20,
1945)
Q: When is bail a matter of right?
A: All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as prescribed by law or the Rules of
Court.
Q: When is bail a matter of discretion?
A: Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, bail becomes discretionary. (Sec. 5, Rule
114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Should the court grant the application, the accused may
be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to
the consent of the bondsman.
Q:When shall bail be denied?
A:If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall
be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a
showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
accused, of the following or other similar
circumstances:
a. That he is a recidivist, quasi‐recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by
the circumstance of reiteration;
b. That he has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;
c. That he committed the offense while under
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit another
crime during the pendency of the appeal.
Q: How is the presumption applied?
A: Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the
accused must be taken into account. The proof against
him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment
(People v. Austria, G.R. No. 55109, Apr. 8, 1991)
Q: Who may invoke the presumption of innocence?
A: It can be invoked only by an individual accused of a
criminal offense; a corporate entity has no personality
to invoke the same.
Q: What is the Equipoise Rule?
A: Under the equipoise rule, when the evidence of
both sides are equally balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in
favor of the accused (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 74259,
Feb. 14, 1991)
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
Q: Does this right pertain to mere presence of a lawyer
in the courtroom?
A: No. The accused must be amply accorded legal
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself
to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly; an
efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, and not
simply a perfunctory representation. (People v.
Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, Apr. 21, 1999)
Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of
Accusation
Q: What is the rationale for this right?
A:
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to make his
defense
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection against further prosecution for the same
cause
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to
support a conviction, if one should be had (US v.
Karelsen G.R. No. 1376, Jan. 21, 1904)
What are the requisites for properly informing the
accused of the nature and cause of accusation?
1.Information must state the name of the accused
2.Designation given to the offense by statute
3. Statement of the acts or omission so complained of
as constituting the offense
4. Name of the offended party
5. Approximate time and date of commission of the
offense
6. Place where offense was committed
7. Every element of the offense must be alleged in the
complaint or information
Q: What happens if the information fails to allege the
material elements of the offense?
A: The accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the
prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial
with respect to such elements.
Q: How is the void for vagueness doctrine related to
this right?
A: The accused is also denied the right to be informed
of the charge against him, and to due process as well,
where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of ordinary
intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or
omissions are punished. In such a case, the law is
deemed void.
Q: May a person be convicted of the crime proved if
the same is different from the crime charged?
A: Under the variance doctrine, in spite of the
difference between the crime that was charged and
that which was eventually proved, the accused may
still be convicted of whatever offense that was proved
even if not specifically set out in the information
provided it is necessarily included in the crime charged
What is meant by speedy trial?
The term “speedy” means free from vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays. The factors to be
considered are:
1. Time expired from the filing of information
2. Length of delay
3. Reasons for the delay
4. Assertion or non‐assertion of the right by the accused
5. Prejudice caused to the defendant
Q: What is meant by impartial trial?
A: The accused is entitled to cold neutrality of an
impartial judge, one who is free from interest or bias.
Q: Why must the trial be public?
A: It is in order to prevent possible abuses which may be
committed against the accused. The attendance at the
trial is open to all, irrespective of their relationship to
the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is
“offensive to decency or public morals,” the public may
be excluded.
Right to Meet the Witnesses
Face to Face
Q: What is the purpose of the right of confrontation?
A: Primarily, to afford the accused an opportunity to
test the testimony of a witness by cross‐examination,
and secondarily, to allow the judge to observe the
deportment of the witness
Q: What is the effect of failure to cross‐examine?
A: If the failure of the accused to cross‐ examine a
witness is due to his own fault or was not due to the
fault of the prosecution, the testimony of the witness
should not be excluded.
Q: Are affidavits of witnesses who are not presented
during trial admissible? A: No. They are inadmissible for
being hearsay. The accused is denied the opportunity to
cross‐examine the witnesses
Right to Compulsory Process to Secure
Attendance of Witness and Production of
Evidence
What are the means available to the parties to
compel the attendance of witnesses and the
production of documents and things needed in the
prosecution or defense of a case?
1. Subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena
duces tecum
 2. Depositions and other modes of discovery
3. Perpetuation of testimonies

Q: What is the difference between subpoena ad

testificandum and subpoena duces tecum?

Ad Testificandum
A process directed to a person requiring him to
attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of an
action, or at any investigation conducted by
competent authority, or for the taking of his
deposition.

Duces Tecum
The person is also required to bring with him any
books, documents, or other things under his
control.

When may trial in absentia proceed?

A: Trial in absentia may proceed if the following

requisites are present:
1. Accused has been validly arraigned
2. Accused has been duly notified of the dates of hearing
Failure to appear is unjustifiable

Is the presence of the accused mandatory?

A: Yes, in the following instances:

1. During arraignment and plea
2. During trial, for identification, unless the accused has
already stipulated on his identity during the pre‐trial
and that he is the one who will be identified by the
witnesses as the accused in the criminal case
3. During promulgation of sentence, unless for a light
offense
Note: While the accused is entitled to be present
during promulgation of judgment, the absence of his
counsel during such promulgation does not affect its
validity.

Q: Can there be promulgation of judgment in absentia?

A: Promulgation of judgment in absentia is valid

provided that the essential elements are present:
1. Judgment be recorded in the criminal docket
2. Copy be served upon accused or counsel.