Privacy of communication and correspondence

protection against unlawful taking of tangible and intangible objects

Anti-wire tapping act

prohibits any person not being authorized by all parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record the same or to
communicate the content thereof to any other person.

Exceptions:

1. The use of these records is permitted only in civil and criminal proceedings
involving certain specified offenses, mainly those affecting national security. (when
public safety or order requires, to be determined by the President otherwise, as may
be provided by law)

2. only upon previous written authorization by the court, to be issued upon

compliance with the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a warrant, and
shall be effective for only sixty days. (lawful order of the court)

Gaanan v. IAC

Telephone extension was not among the devices covered by this law and that the
use of that instrument to listen in on a private conversation was not prohibited as a
tap.

Zulueta vs. CA

Right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic to her husband and
there took documents consisting of private communications between her husband
and his alleged paramour.

Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC

Bill of rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures
made by private individuals.

Liberty of abode and travel

Caunca v. Salazar

An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective

employee has absolutely no power to curtail the freedom of said employee. The fact
that power to control said freedom may be an effective means of avoiding monetary
loss to the agency is no reason for jeopardizing a fundamental human right.
Purpose: to further emphasize the individual's liberty as safeguarded in general
terms by the due process clause. Liberty under that clause includes the right to
choose one's residence, to leave it whenever he pleases, and to travel wherever he
wills.

Limitations:

1. upon lawful order

2. right to travel by the requirements of national security, public safety or public

health as may provided by law

Examples:

1. person facing criminal charges

2. lessee for violating his contractual duties

3. judge may prevent a person from entering certain premises under dispute or
declared off-limits by the proper authorities.

4. health officers may restrict access to contaminated areas

5. quarantine those already exposed to diseases

6. residents in the area where there is a threat of volcanic eruption may be forced
to evacuate and prevented from returning until the danger is over

7. travel of citizens to hostile countries may be regulated or prohibited to prevent

possible international misunderstanding and conflict

8. requiring members to reside in a reservation for their better education,

advancement and protection

9. temporarily suspending the deployment of domestic workers abroad in view of

reports of their abuse and exploitation by their foreign employers

10. refusal of the government to allow the return of petitioner on the ground that it
would endanger the national security

Note:

• A Mayor was not sustained in deporting ill-repute women to Davao for the
purpose of ridding the city of serious moral and health problems.
•. An accused on bail cannot invoke his right to travel as the condition of bail bond
requires that he would be available at any time the court should require his
presence.

Freedom of religion

Purpose: to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the
limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions.

3 guarantees:

1. Non-establishment clause

2. Freedom of religious profession and worship

3. No religion test

However, the wall of separation between Church and State is not a wall of hostility.

Elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized as manifested in the

following:

Property tax exemptions to properties devoted exclusively to religious

purposes.

Sectarian aid is not prohibited to priest, preacher, minister or other

religious teacher or dignitary as such is assigned to the armed forces or to
any penal institution, orphanage or leprosarium.

Optional religious instruction in the public schools is by constitutional

mandate allowed.

Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day

and Sunday are made legal holidays.

Reason: because of the secular idea that their observance is conducive to

beneficial moral results.

No violation of establishment clause if:

Statute has secular legislative purpose

Its principal and primary effect is one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion

It does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

Aglipay v. Ruiz
Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious institution, as long as such benefit was
only incidental to a legitimate secular objective, would not violate the prohibition.
The main purpose of the stamp was to attract tourists to our country and not
primarily to publicize the religious event. The provision does not prohibit the use of
public property for religious purposes when the religious character of such use is
merely incidental to a temporary use which is available indiscriminately to the
public in general. Hence, a public street may be used for a religious procession
even as it is available for a civic parade, in the same way that a public plaza is not
barred to a religious rally if it may also be used for a political assemblage.

Garces v. Estenzo

There was no violation of the Constitution where it was shown that the money used
by a barangay council for the purchase of a religious image was raised by it from
private contributions and did not constitute public funds.

Note:

The priests who served the Constitutional Commission of 1986 in a non-

ecclesiastical capacity were entitled to be paid per diems from public funds for
services rendered by them.

Exemption from property taxes of religious institutions and all lands, buildings and
improvements actually, directly and exclusively devoted to religious purposes.

Public and high schools may be used for optional religious instructions. (provided
by the Constitution)

Religious dogma and other matters of faith are outside the jurisdiction of the
secular authorities however, it is also settled that whatever dogma is adopted by a
religious group cannot be binding upon the State if it contravenes its valid laws.

Two aspects:

1. Freedom to believe

It is absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of

thought.

2. Freedom to act one’s belief

Subject to regulation in the exercise of police power where the belief is

translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.

The constitutional provision gives religious conformity to religious

liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to
 religious dogma, not freedom from conformity law because of religious
dogma.

As long as it can be shown that the exercise of the right does not impair the public
welfare, the attempt of the State to regulate or prohibit such right would be an
unconstitutional encroachment.

Instances where the State cannot interfere

1. Solicitation for the religious purposes

2. Distributing religious literature in the premises of a privately-owned town.

(Freedom of press and religion is preferred over the rights of owners of

property.)

3. Religious corporation engaged in the sale of Bibles and other religious

articles cannot be compelled to obtain a license and pay the corresponding
fee. However, this doctrine is not applicable in the VAT case as held that
registration fee is not imposed for the exercise of a privilege but only for the
purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration.

4. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ members refused to attend the flag ceremony and

salute to the flag.

Test to determine which shall prevail as between religious freedom and the powers
of the State is TEST OF REASONABLENESS.

Instances where the Court sustained the prohibition:

1. The petitioners were not sincere in their profession of religious liberty when
they walk to pray for an end to violence. Assuming they were in good faith,
there was still the necessity of protecting Malacanang which was near the
church in case the march went out of hand.

The burden of proof to show the existence of grave and imminent danger lies on the
military and police officials.

Freedom of expression

Every citizen has a right to offer his views and suggestions in the discussion of the
common problems of the community or the nation.

Freedom to speak includes the right to be silent.

Elements:
1. freedom from previous restraints or censorship

The government has the burden of showing the validity of restraints.

Gonzales v. COMELEC

The law prohibiting, except during the prescribed election period, the solicitation of
any campaign is sustained because the inordinate preoccupation of the people with
politics tended toward the neglect of other serious needs of the nation and the
pollution of its suffrages.

Osmena v. COMELEC

The regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech, as any restriction on

freedom of expression occasioned thereby is only incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality.

Chavez v. Secretary Gonzalez

“Garci tapes”

If the restriction is content-based, there must be clear and present danger to justify
the restriction.

INC v. CA

The criticisms of INC against other religions did not create a clear and present
danger requiring prior restraint of the State.

Contents is not so much restricted but the time, place and manner is.

Pricimas v. Fugoso

Issuance of permit for a public place is to regulate reasonably and not absolutely
prohibit.

National Press Club v. COMELEC

Any media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality who is a candidate

for any effective public office shall take a LOA from his work as such during the
campaign period.

Adiong v. COMELEC

Owner has the right to express his choice and exercise his right of free speech. To
strike down thus right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his liberties.

Movie Censorship
Movies compared to other media expression, have a greater capacity for evil and
must, therefore, be subjected to a greater degree of regulation. But the power of
MTRCB can be exercised only for the purposes of “classification”, not censorship.
Such power is limited only to programs and not to TV personality.

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. V. COMELEC

No law prohibiting the holding and reporting of exit polls.

2. freedom from subsequent punishment

This is not absolute, and may be properly regulated in the interest of the public.
Does not cover ideas offensive to public order or decency or the reputation of
persons. The State may validly impose penal and/or administrative sanctions, such
as the following:

a. Libel

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious but this

presumption of malice does not exist in the following instances:

i. Private communication made by any person to another in the

performance of any legal, moral or social duty

ii. Fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which
are not of a confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions

b. Obscenity

No one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene

materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive “hard
core” sexual conduct. Obscenity is an issue proper for judicial determination
and should be treated on a case-to-case basis, and on the judge’s sound
discretion.

U.S. v. Kottinger

The pictures were merely intends to present the tribe in their native attire. (Art)

People v. Go Pin

The accused having charged a fee for admission to his exhibition was for
commercial purposes and not artistic.
 c. Criticism of official conduct

The official acts and even the private life of a public servant are legitimate
subjects of public comment as long as the comments are made in good faith
and with justifiable ends. Also applicable to the public figure like a
candidate. Even a private individual may still be subject to public comment even
if he's not a public official or at least a public figure as long as he is involved in a
public issue.

Lagunzad v. Sotto vda. de Gonzales

Being a public figure does not automatically destroy in toto a person's right to
privacy. The right to invade a person's privacy to disseminate public information
does not extend to a fictional or novelized representation of a person.

Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Judge Capulong

The right of privacy of a public figure is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.
Enrile continues to be a public figure and the intrusion is not unreasonable and
actionable.

People v. Alarcon

Newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the

courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitutes criminal
contempt which is not protected by the guarantee of press freedom and summarily
punishable by the courts-> contempt.

In Re: Atty. Emiliano P. Jurado Jr.

It is not necessary to show that the publication actually obstructs the administration
of justice; it is enough that it tends to do so.

In Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo

While there is no law to restrain or punish the freest expression of disapprobation of

what is done in or by the courts, free expression must not be used as a vehicle to
satisfy one’s irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy the
courts and their members.

d. Rights of students to free speech in school premises not absolute

While the Campus Journalism Act provides that a student shall not be expelled or
suspended solely on the basis of articles he or she has written, the same should
not infringe on the school’s right to discipline its students.

3 criteria for valid governmental interference:

 a. clear and present danger rule

Applied by the lower courts

The idea expressed must be traceable.

clear- points a causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising
from the utterance questioned

present-time element to identify the imminent and immediate danger which is not
only probable but very likely inevitable

Attacking political or radical groups does not constitute clear & present danger
because the disturbance was not created by the defendant but by the people. But
speaking on the public streets with intent to provoke a breach of the peace
constitutes one. Picketing may be validly prohibited and penalized when set in a
background of violence because it would create a clear & present danger to the
safety of persons and the public order. To justify suppression of free speech, there
must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is
practiced. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or destruction of
property is not enough to justify its suppression.

The use of public streets can only be regulated by the authorities but not prohibited.
The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If
it were a private place, only the consent of the owner.

b. the dangerous tendency doctrine

A person can be punished for his ideas even if they only tended to create the evil
sought to be prevented.

Applied by the Supreme Court under odd circumstances

c. balancing-of-interest test

Usually doesn’t involve national or public security, public order.

If it appears that there is urgent necessity for protecting the national security
against improvident exercise of freedom of expression, the right must yield.
Authority is preferred under the dangerous tendency doctrine, liberty under the
clear and present danger rule.

Assembly and Petition (right to assemble and petition the government for
redress grievances)

It is not subject to previous restraint or censorship, provided it will not prejudice the
public welfare.
Reyes v. Bagatsing

If the assembly is intended to be held in a public place, a permit for the use of such
place, and not for the assembly itself, may be validly required.

Primicias v. Fugoso

Power of local officials is only regulation. The most they can do is indicate the time
and conditions for their use.

De la Cruz v. Ela

The power even includes the designation to other place to avoid disruption of the
rites that night be held in a nearby church.

B.P. 880 (Public Assembly Act)

A permit for the holding of a public assembly shall not be necessary where the
meeting is to be held in a private place, in the campus of a government-owned and
operated educational institution, or in a freedom park. When permit is required,
written application must be filed at least 5 days before in the mayor’s office and
shall be acted upon within 2 days. The law prohibits law-enforcement agencies
from interfering with a lawful assembly, but permits them to detail a contingent
under a responsible commander at least 100 meters away from the assembly in
case it becomes necessary to maintain order.

Bayan v. Ermita

It is not an absolute ban on public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates
the time, place and manner of the assemblies.

Maximum Tolerance

This is the prevailing principle for the protection and benefit of the rallyists and is
independent of the content of the expression in the rally. Permits can only be
denied if there’s a “clear and present danger” to public order, public safety, public
convenience, public morals or public health. It does not curtail or unduly restrict
freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public place as to the time, place and
manner of assemblies.

Tests:

1. Purpose test

2. Auspices test

Who are the organizers.

Right to association

Includes the right not to associate but does not include the right to strike.

Limitation: for purposes not contrary to law

Alliance of Government Workers v. Ministry of Labor and Employment

Members of the civil service may not declare a strike to enforce their economic
demands.

Occena v. COMELEC

The right to association was not violated where the political parties were prohibited
from participating in the barangay elections to insure the non-partisanship of the
candidates.

In re Edillon

To compel a lawyer to be a member of IBP is not violative of his constitutional

freedom to associate. The only compulsion there is to pay the annual dues for the
reason that in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality
profession, it should be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the program.

Access to information

Freedom of information or freedom to obtain information for publication is not

guaranteed by the Constitution but freedom to access on matters of public concern
is subject to the limitations imposed by the Legislature.

Limitations:

a. National security matters and intelligence information

b. Trade secrets and banking transactions

c. Criminal matters

d. Other confidential information

Subido v. Baldoza

The authority to regulate the manner of examining public records does not carry
with it the power to prohibit.

KBP v. Sandiganbayan

The request for radio-TV coverage of the Estrada trial is majority holding that it
might, intentionally or not, unduly influence the decision of the case, as against the
minority view invoking the people’s right to information on such a vital matter.
Non-imprisonment for debt

Debt refers to any civil obligation arising from contract, expressed or implied. The
remedy for the recovery of the unpaid debt is a civil action.

Although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt, he can be
validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted his debt through fraud. The
act for which he is penalized is the deception he employed in securing the debt, not
his default in paying it. The responsibility of debtor in this situation arises not from
the contract of loan, but ex delicto, for the commission of the crime.

Lozano case

The gravamen of the offense punished in BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or a check that is dishonoured upon its presentation for payment.
Because of its deleterious effects on public interest, the practice is proscribed by
the law. This is an offense against public order.

Poll tax

A tax is not a debt but arises from the obligation of the person to contribute his
share in the maintenance of the government, failure to pay the same can be validly
punished with imprisonment. The only exception is the POLL TAX.

Custodial Investigation

-any initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

-includes issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person

-prior to the questioning, the accused must be informed with his Miranda Rights
which cannot be waived.

-more protection is accorded to the suspect who could be easily pressured, by

physical force or other forms of compulsion, including the condition of being held in
incommunicado or in a solitary confinement or being held in a secret detention
places and thus unable to seek the advice and moral support of counsel, into
making damaging confessions. (all evidence exacted from any of the following are
inadmissible)

-is not enough that the accused is inform with his rights, but must see to it the he
understood.

-rights may be waived as long as it is in writing and in the presence of a counsel.

-The “operative act” is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been
taken into custody by the police to carry put a process of interrogation that lends to
itself to eliciting incriminatory statements.

De La Torre v. CA (overturned the Gamboa vs. Cruz case)

Right to counsel is not available during police line-up as this is not considered as
custodial investigation.

People v. Lucero

Constitution requires not just any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel.

People v. Suarez

Re-enactment of the crime in the absence of counsel is inadmissible evidence

against the accused.

People v. Serzo

Right option to choose a counsel is not unlimited where the accused repeatedly
asked for postponement of his trial on the ground that he still looking a lawyer de
parte. The court should then appoint a counsel de officio for him.

Bail

-security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or
a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be
required.

-only persons under detention may avail to secure their provisional release

-applies even if not formally charged yet (Rule 114 of the Rules of Court)

-is still operative even if the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended

-not applicable under the law existing at that time of commission and at the time of
the application for bail, to offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua, or death
(the determining point is the punishable penalty and not the imposed penalty)

-rebellion is bailable

-bail is not available in extradition proceeding neither in deportation

-not applicable to civil cases

Bail as a matter of right

-applies to all in custody except (1) under the law existing at that time of
commission and at the time of the application for bail, to offenses punishable with
reclusion perpetua, or death, and (2) the evidence of guilt is strong.

-Even if the crime imputed to the accused is punishable by RP, it’s still a matter of
right if the evidence of guilt is not strong. He need not establish this; it is for the
prosecution to prove the contrary, although it’s not necessary at this point to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

-Hearing on the petition for bail is required to satisfy due process.

-The mere probability of escape does not warrant the denial of the right to bail; the
remedy is to increase the bail, provided it is not excessive.

Bill as discretionary to the court

-after conviction before the RTC, the accused may be denied bail if there’s a risk of
absconding

-the Court may grant bail even if the evidence of guilt is strong in view of the illness
of the accused which required hospitalization

Factors to consider by the judge in fixing reasonable amount of bail (judicial

function)

a. Financial ability of the accused to give bail

b. Nature and circumstances of the offense

c. Penalty for the offense charged

d. Character and reputation of the accused

e. Age and health

f. Weight of the evidence against him

g. Probability of his appearing at the trial

h. Forfeiture of other bonds by him

i. The fact that he was a fugitive from justice when arrested

j. The pendency of other cases in which he is under bond

Bail denied

The following must concur:

1. Charged (not conviction) with offense punishable by capital penalty

 2. The evidence of guilt is strong

Speedy disposition of cases

-Justice delayed is justice denied.

-delay of more than 3 years, tantamount to denial of due process of law and the
case can be dismissed

-unnecessary delay amounts to denial of due process

-delay of the conduct of PI

In Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan,[14] this Court dismissed the informations

pending before the Sandiganbayan, after finding the delay of three years in
the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan to be
violative of the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy disposition of
cases. It was held therein:

“xxx. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed reasonable or
justifiable in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar. We
are not impressed by the attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize the long
delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that “the delay may be due
to a painstaking and gruelling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan as to whether the
evidence presented during the preliminary investigation merited prosecution
of a former high ranking government official.” In the first place, such a
statement suggests a double standard of treatment, which must be
emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of the five charges against the
petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his sworn statement of assets
and liabilities required by Republic Act No. 3019, which certainly did not
involve complicated legal and factual issues necessitating such “painstaking
and gruelling scrutiny” as would justify a delay of almost three years in
terminating the preliminary investigation. The other two charges relating to
the alleged bribery and alleged giving of unwarranted benefits to a relative,
while presenting more substantial legal and factual issues, certainly do not
warrant or justify the period of three years, which it took the Tanodbayan to
resolve the case.”