Constitutional Law Ii Notes

COMPILED NOTES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Fundamental Powers, Bill of Rights) Culled primarily from the lectures of Atty. Ismael Sarangaya, Jr. Constitutional Law – the proper balance between authority as represented by Most pervasive, least limitable the fundamental powers and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. Southern Luzon Drug Corp. v. DSWD - Petitioner questions the tax treatment of the 20% discount ® Too much liberty = anarchy, lack of order; too much authority = - In what way did the law regulate businesses here? despotism, dictatorship - The pricing. Similar to a price control law, the law regulated the pricing. Does the Constitution establish the 3 fundamental powers? - The right to profit is inchoate: something yet to exist - No. The Constitution merely provides limitations because as soon as the - Therefore, there is no taking because it is hard to quantify profits as they State commences its existence, the powers commence as well. The are mere expectancies; since they are uncertain, just compensation is still powers are INHERENT. impossible to compute/concretize - Before there could be “taking”, there must actually be a property that POLICE POWER – authority of the State to enact reasonable and wholesome exists. laws that regulate liberty or property for the general welfare. Gerochi v. Department of Energy - NPC was trying to collect or release its share in the universal charge Should police power be strictly defined/applied? - Legal basis for the universal charge as an exercise of police power: the People v. Pomar EPIRA Law because the EPIRA Law promotes the electrification of the - Act No. 3071, an State exercise of police power, imposes a condition on entire country the employers to pay pregnant women their maternity leave benefits. - What is the aim of the special trust fund (STF)? - Police power should not infringe the freedom of individuals to contract. - The economic survival of the electric industry. - Ironically, the case which discussed police power limited it and the facts Acebedo v. CA are no longer relevant because the non-impairment clause of the - Could a government regulate a profession? Constitution yields to the exercise of police power. - No. there are other institutions in this case who may regulate PLDT v. City of Davao professions. The local government in this case overstepped when - Talks about the exercise of police power for public comfort and it tried to regulate the profession. convenience - Could a corporation practice a profession? U.S. v. Salaveria - No. People practice professions. What the government may do is - Panguingue was not a game of chance, but the SC took notice of the fact that to require the procurement of certification from its employees as gambling must be exterminated because it promotes conduct that is contrary to their authority to practice. to morals Ynot v. IAC - there is no absolute prohibition on gambling, only regulation - Transporting carabaos from one place to another is prohibited. Goldenway v. Equitable - Was the EO in this case a statute? - The General Banking Law is the State’s only way to regulate the banking - It is in reality a presidential decree industry and ensure the liquidity and solvency of banks. Daverick Pacumio UST Faculty of Civil Law

Nuisance per se Can be summarily abated

Nuisance per accidens Cannot be summarily abated Noxious At the wrong place, at the wrong time (e.g. patis factory in a school area) - In this case, there was a conclusive presumption that persons transferring carabaos are going to kill the said carabaos U.S. v. Toribio - Permits are being required to slaughter carabaos - Toribio’s contention: it was taking - This is not taking but mere regulation as to the use of the carabaos Executive Secretary v. CA - What happened here that made private recruitment agencies say that there was a loss of livelihood? - The affiliates of the recruitment agencies ceased their operations because R.A. 8042 had the effect of equating legitimate recruitment agencies to illegal recruitment agencies - Processing of applications for overseas employment was in a standstill - The right to employment/right to conduct business is a property right. However, a property right or property may not be used to injure other people’s rights. Even rights to business may be regulated. Plenary Power - Means that Congress may choose the scope of police power MMDA v. Viron - MMDA was designated to implement the E.O. in the entire Metro Manila - Less-intrusive means could have been employed instead of an absolute closure of bus terminals - A prior E.O. pertained to DOTC as the proper implementing agency Tawang v. LTWD - Constitutional supremacy: any contract, law, executive order entered into by the executive and legislative bodies are null and void because the Constitution is deemed written in contracts. - Police power should not be used to violate the Constitution

Ortigas v. FEATI - Impairment of obligations of contracts: if a law changes, alters, modifies stipulations without parties’ consent - There was no impairment in this case because police power prevails over then non-impairment clause of the Constitution - Laws have the effect of altering contracts, but such laws are sustained if made in the exercise of police power BF Homes v. City Mayor - To meet the growing needs of the subdivision, the reclassification of an area was proper BANAT v. COMELEC - Role of poll watchers are imbued with public interest so prior contracts made with them by political parties and candidates regarding their compensation are invalidated to give way to police power. DECS v. San Diego Tablarin v. Gutierrez Whether the 3-flunk rule is Whether the NMAT is constitutional valid and constitutional The State may regulate entry into medical schools as the medical profession is imbued with public interest. If one aspires to be a lawyer but works better as a plumber, he should be so advised. Hermano Oil Manufacturing v. TRB - Hermano Oil was asking for right of way - The SC held that it did not constitute taking at all, but merely a restriction on its use of its property for the welfare of the motorists who traverse along NLEX. OSG v. Ayala Land - Invalid exercise of police power. There is no obligation on the part of private property owners to grant free parking spaces under the National Building Code as obligations arising from law are not presumed. Quezon City v. Ericta - Directive to owners of memorial parks to allocate 6% of their property for the burial of paupers is confiscatory and constitutes taking of property without just compensation Regulation of Public Morals Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manila

Imposition of license fees on motels = power to tax as an implement of police power - Requirement for customers and guests to fill out public forms = valid regulation to safeguard public morals City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. - Ordinance prohibiting the operation of motels - The ordinance which restricted the use of property to such extent that it cannot be used for any lawful purpose constituted taking according to the Court, without just compensation. General Welfare Clause - Way by which Congress delegates police power - Sec. 16 of the Local Government Code - Local Government Units exercise this delegated power through ordinances Cruz v. Pandacan Hikers - There was no ordinance authorizing the Brgy. Chairman to destroy the basketball ring - Brgy. Chairman thinks they are authorized to abate/destroy the ring pursuant to the General Welfare Clause - The General Welfare Clause is vested in the Sangguniang Pangbaranggay (local legislative body) Requisites of a valid ordinance: 1. Must not contravene laws; 2. Must be for public purpose; 3. Must not be unfair; 4. Must not prohibit; 5. Must not be partial; 6. Must not be unreasonable Social Justice Society v. Atienza - Ordinance converting Pandacan Oil Depot areas from industrial to commercial was valid because the areas might have been subjected to terrorist attacks Legaspi v. City of Cebu - There was a specific provision in the Local Government Code vesting the Sanggunian with authority to enact ordinances regulating thoroughfares and use of roads MMDA v. Bel-Air -

-

MMDA wanted to destroy a wall and open Neptune Street to the public. MMDA has no police power. It is a mere administrative council

EMINENT DOMAIN - Power of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. - Does Art. III, Sec. 9 establish the power of eminent domain? - It does not, it merely states the limitations on such power. - Proceeds from jus regalia or the regalian doctrine which simply states that all lands are owned by the State - Provisions implying eminent domain: - Art. III, Sec. 9; - Art. XII, Sec. 18 (Public Utilities); - Art. XVII, Sec. 22 (Agrarian Reform) - Expropriation: proceedings to exercise eminent domain - 2 stages in expropriation: - Court determines whether the entity has authority to expropriate and if there is public use. This stage is appealable; - Determination of just compensation. This stage is also appealable RP v. Heirs of Saturnino Borbon - Should the NPC be allowed to withdraw the appeal? - Even if there is already a complaint, and even if there is already an order of expropriation, like in this case, the complaint could still be withdrawn if there is no more public use NAPOCOR v. Posada - NPC withdrew from the case alleging that the public purpose for which they sought expropriation ceased to exist. - Exception to the rule that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose: - Trial court order had already been final and executory; - Government already took possession of the property; - Expropriation case caused prejudice to the landowner - Expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property ceases to be for public use. The State must first file a motion to withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings which is subject to the sound discretion of the said court.

Heirs of Moreno v. MCIAA - The relationship between the State and the landowner is converted to trustee and beneficiary upon the discontinuance - When the public use for which the property was used ceases, the Court shall determine the proper way of settling the rights, which in this case, was by considering the relationship of the government and petitioners as an implied trust. - The effects of discontinuing the case must be determined on a case to case basis, thus the phrase in Rule 67 “upon terms that are just” Heirs of Saturnino Borbon Heirs of Moreno Withdrawal entitles owner Withdrawal converts the to damages relationship between the State and landowner as trustee and beneficiary RP v. CA - Laches: effect of delay; other party was given the impression that the other party lost interest - Factually, landowners were actively pursuing their claims so they should not be faulted - An action to recover just compensation does not prescribe - Kung nag-prescribe edi sana dinelay nalang ng gobyerno palagi. NO EQUALITY. RP v. Samson-Tatad - Collateral attack – an out-of-topic attack - In case of uncertainty, the trial court is authorized to rule on the ownership but solely to determine one’s entitlement to just compensation Forfom v. PNR - Estoppel by laches: a party made a representation to another who believes that the other party had taken that position and stands by it which binds both parties. - By continuous negotiation, landowner recognized the validity of expropriation Manapat v. CA - Propriety of exercising eminent domain could not be determined on purely quantitative basis

Genuine necessity was a political question in this case as P.D. 1072, the basis of the expropriation was made by President Marcos in the exercise of his legislative powers then Bardillon v. Brgy. Masili - Talks about jurisdiction - Expropriation proceedings does not deal with the recovery of a sum of money. Expropriation proceedings deal with the exercise of the government and its right to expropriate to take property for public use. The subject of expropriation proceedings is the exercise of the government’s power of eminent domain and is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. EMINENT DOMAIN POLICE POWER Property taken is not Property destroyed or noxious regulated is noxious Eminent Domain and Land Reform Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform - In land reform cases, what separates the exercise of police power and eminent domain? - To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power of the State for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area involved, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. Requisites for Compensable Taking: 1. Entry into private property; 2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period; 3. Entry must be made under color of legal authority; 4. The entry must be for public use; 5. The owner is deprived of any beneficial enjoyment of his property. NAPOCOR v. Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay - Compensable taking includes destruction, diminution, restriction, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common necessary use and enjoyment of the property or lessening of its value. The same holds true in this case as the owners here not able to dispose or introduce any -

improvements on the said property because of the constructions made by NAPOCOR. National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville - The determination of just compensation must be from 1983, when the taking of Oroville’s property was undertaken by Transco. The SC held that the rulings in Macabangkit-Sangkay and Saludares, where the Court determined just compensation from the date the property owners initiated the inverse condemnation proceedings for just compensation, were mere exceptions to the general rule that just compensation must be reckoned from the date of actual taking. Taking - RP v. Castellvi - Need not be a transfer of title or physical entry to the property (Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay) - Taking 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 (Cruz, 2015) Genuine Necessity - Essentially political when decided by the national legislature and are usually not subject to judicial review (Cruz, 2015) - Genuine necessity is a political question: that which is submitted to the people in their sovereign capacity in which full discretionary authority is given to the legislative and executive authority City of Manila v. Chinese Community - The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into - Delegated exercise of eminent domain is no longer a political question Requisites for a Local Government Unit’s exercise of eminent domain (Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code) 1. Ordinance 2. Just compensation 3. Public Use

4. Valid offer – which must precede everything Exception: Deposit of 15% of the BIR Zonal Valuation Masikip v. City of Pasig - Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of concern: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) genuine necessity for the taking; and (c) public use or purpose of the taking. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there was no genuine necessity for the taking. A review of the records revealed to the Court that the intended beneficiaries of the expropriation of plaintiff’s property was the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association which was a private, non-profit organization. Clearly, it was not intended for public use. Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality of Pasig - The SC held that the witnesses adduced by respondent Municipality proved that there was a necessity in expropriating the lands owned by JILCSFI, which was the fact that no other vehicles, especially firetrucks, could pass through from E.R. Santos street towards Sto. Tomas Bukid where majority of the houses were made of light materials. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court noted that respondent Municipality failed to prove the necessity of constructing the road in JILCSFI’s property, and not somewhere else. - Genuine Necessity must be proved by preponderance of evidence; Pasig failed to substantiate genuine necessity Public Use Brgy. Sindalan v. CA - Public use has no precise meaning; it depends on diverse situations. The SC noted that there is no precise definition of public use. There had been a deviation in the traditional definition of public use as actual use by the public. For all intents and purposes, public use was defined as whatever is beneficially employed for the community. - Public use does not depend on the numerical count. - Standard for public use: whether or not use is exercisable in common as opposed to a select group Subjects of Expropriation: - Anything that can come under the dominion of man. This includes real, personal, tangible, and intangible properties. In RP v. PLDT, services

were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking under the power of eminent domain. (Cruz, 2015) Just Compensation - Full and fair market value of property taken - Fair market value is the price the buyer and seller agreed to in the ordinary course of legal/ordinary transactions. - Under Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, just compensation is determined at the time of taking or at the time of institution of the expropriation proceedings, whichever comes first. - Payment of interest is no longer absolute if the property owner sleeps on his rights Ilo-Ilo v. Besana - The SC held that non-payment of just compensation does not entitle private respondent to recover his possession. Concededly, Javellana slept on his rights for 16 years, and was to be faulted for not checking with the PNB back then whether a deposit was made or not. Despite that, respondent may still recover the just compensation that was due him for over 30 years, and that the petitioner is liable to pay respondent damages in view of the taking of the property without just compensation. Sy v. Quezon City - The government is liable to pay exemplary damages in case of unlawful or unauthorized taking. Inverse Condemnation Proceedings - Where private owners initiate the condemnation proceedings - Is this the prevailing rule? - No. It is more of a rule in equity. It is only an exception, such as in the Heirs of Macabangkit-Sangkay when actual taking of the property could not be determined. - The prevailing rule is still Rule 67, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court There was taking in 2010, but the filing of the inverse condemnation proceedings was only on 2019. How much is the interest? 6% or 12%? - Central Bank Circular No. 905 – 22 December 1978 up to June 30, 2013 (prevailing interest rate is 12%) - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799 series of 2013 – 01 July 2013 onwards (prevailing interest rate is 6%) May Congress provide for amount of just compensation?

- No. Just Compensation is a judicial function May Rule 45 of the Rules of Court be used as a remedy to assail the finding of just compensation by a lower court? - No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court deals with questions of law. Just Compensation is a question of fact. Is res judicata applicable in Eminent Domain proceedings? - No. In Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty, the SC held that the principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property. May state immunity be invoked in determining just compensation? - No. In Amigable v. Cuenca, the SC held that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Destruction from Eminent Domain Necessity Property destroyed is Property expropriated is noxious wholesome No just compensation Just compensation Anyone could exercise; arises from the right of self-preservation R.A. 10752 – Right of Way Act Sec. 14 – Provisions of this Act apply prospectively except those already settled. Sec. 6 – expropriation is initiated by the appropriate implementing agency, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (a) Upon filing of the expropriation complaint, the implementing agency must immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the sum of: 1. 100% of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR issued not more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint 2. The replacement costs to be determined by: i. The implementing agency (IA); ii. Government Financial Institution (GFI) with adequate experience in property appraisal;

iii. Independent property appraisers (IPA) recognized by the BSP 3. The current market value of the crops and trees located within the property as determined by the GFI or IPA Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. If, within seven (7) working days after the deposit to the court of the amount equivalent to the sum mentioned above, the court has not issued to the implementing agency a writ of possession for the affected property, the counsel of the implementing agency shall immediately seek from the court the issuance of the writ of possession. The court shall issue the writ of possession ex parte; no hearing shall be required. The court shall release the said amount to the owner upon presentation of sufficient proofs of ownership. (b) In case the owner of the property cannot be found, is unknown, or is deceased in cases where the estate has not been settled, after exerting due diligence, or there are conflicting claims over the ownership of the property and improvements and/or structures thereon, the IA shall deposit the amount in items a(1) to a(3) above for the benefit of the person to be adjudged in the same proceeding as entitled thereto. Upon compliance with the above guidelines, the court shall immediately issue to the IA an order to take possession of the property. If within seven (7) working days after the deposit with the court of the amount equivalent to the sum under items (a)(1) to (a)(3) above, the court has not issued to the IA a writ of possession for the affected property, the counsel of the IA shall immediately seek from the court the issuance of the writ of possession. The court shall release the said amount to the person adjudged in the same expropriation proceeding as entitled thereto.

(c) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no land classification, the city or municipality assessor is hereby mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case, to conduct a zonal valuation for said area, based on the land classification done by the city or municipal assessor. (d) In case the completion of a government infrastructure is of utmost urgency and importance and there is no land classification or no existing zonal valuation of the area concerned, or the zonal valuation has been in force for more than three (3) years already, the IA shall use the BIR zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation. (e) In any of the cases in items (a) to (d), upon receipt by the IA of the writ of possession, the IA may take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. (f) In the event that the owner of the property contests the IA's proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court. How to Get Away with Expropriation Government Side Step 1: If you’re the counsel for the IA, upon filing of the expropriation complaint, deposit the following to the court: (a) 100% of the current zonal valuation of the BIR provided it be issued not more than 3 years prior to the filing of the complaint. (b) Replacement costs (determined by IA, GFI, or IPA) (c) Current market value of the crops and trees determined by GFI, IPA Property owner cannot be found or is unknown or deceased and his estate has not yet been settled? Conflicting claims of ownership over the property?

Same procedure. Still deposit (a) to (c) to the court.

What if the property owner is not satisfied with the proffered value?

Step 2: Wait for seven (7) days. If within 7 days after the deposit of items (a) to (c) above there is still no issuance of a writ of possession from the court, file a motion ex parte. The other party does not have to comment, and there’s no hearing required.

The court shall then determine within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case the proper amount of just compensation. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court.

Step 3: After you receive the writ of possession from the court, you may take possession of the property and commence your project. What if the property owner contests the value proffered by the IA? The court shall determine the just compensation to be paid within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the IA shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court. What if there is no land classification? The city/municipal assessor must conduct a zonal valuation within 60 days. Okay, but I don’t have that much time on my hands. The project is of utmost importance and urgency and (a) there’s no land classification; and (b) the zonal valuation has been in force for more than three (3) years already. What can I do? Use the BIR zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity as the basis for the valuation. Property owner side Step 1: if you’re the counsel for the property owner, once the IA has made the deposit, request the property owner to prepare the proof of his/her ownership, and then file a motion with the court for the release of the deposit made upon the presentation of the aforementioned proof of ownership.

TAXATION Taxes: the enforced proportional contribution from people/property within the State effected by the State in the exercise of its sovereignty to defray its operational expenses. -

Enforced: mandatory Proportional: based on a person’s ability to pay Exercise of sovereignty: by authority of law and is a sovereign function To defray its operational expenses: to retain the government

Basis of taxation: The Lifeblood Doctrine. Taxes are what we pay for in exchange of a civilized society for the government’s existence. (CIR v. Algue) NAPOCOR v. Cabanatuan - There was a previous grant of exemption but was withdrawn by the Local Government Code - Cabanatuan was justified in imposing a franchise fee. - Taxation even assumes greater importance with the ratification of the present constitution, in that the power to levy taxes was no longer lodged exclusively with Congress, but was granted to LGUs as well. This paradigm shift resulted from the realization that genuine development could only be achieved by fostering local autonomy and providing decentralization of governance. Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR - Estoppel does not apply to the collection of taxes - SC used the lifeblood doctrine by saying that estoppel does not apply to the State as taxes are the lifeblood of the State and could not be impaired by estoppel

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, without which, it could neither exist nor endure. The government cannot be estopped from collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents. - Petitioner contends that CIR was estopped from questioning the jurisdiction by actively participating in the proceedings therein. CREBA v. Romulo - Minimum Corporate income Tax is not an additional imposition; it is in lieu of the ordinary income tax if the normal income tax is suspiciously low Is the taxing power delegated by Congress to LGUs? - No, it is a Constitutional grant. Art. X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides that each LGU shall have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. CIR v. Enron - May the lifeblood doctrine be used in dispensing with the notice/letter? - No. Taxation must be collected lawfully and not arbitrarily. Reyes v. Almanzor - Income Approach v. Comparable Sales Approach - 2 requirements for the Comparable Sales Approach to be used: - Sale must represent an arms-length transaction between the seller and the buyer - Comparable with another property Theories behind the exercise of power to tax 1. Necessity Theory – taxes are necessary to preserve state integrity 2. Benefits-Protection Theory – persons, property are liable for taxes to receive protection and benefits from the State 3. Symbiotic Relationship Theory – despite a person’s natural reluctance to part with his property, he must do so for the continued operation of the government - Without taxes, the government will lose the motivating power to continue its operation - The government must respond to taxes collected with life-enhancing services Tax Exemptions - Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. (Cruz, 2015) -

Any claim for exemption must be construed strictisimi juris against the taxpayer. Sea-land Service v. CA - tax exemptions are not presumed and that they must be strictly construed against those who claim them. In this case, the RP-US Military Bases Agreement clearly provide that US Nationals are exempt from any income derived under any contract made in the US or with the Government of the US in connection with the construction, maintenance, defense, and operation of the bases. The shipping of household goods and effects of US military personnel clearly do not fall within the construction, maintenance, defense, and operation of military bases. Thus, the claim for refund must be denied. Exceptions to the strict interpretation on tax exemptions 1. Clear legislative intent 2. Law provides for liberal interpretation 3. Special taxes relating to special cases and affecting special classes of persons 4. Public property 5. Religious and charitable institutions 6. In favor of government, political subdivisions, or instrumentalities Is the power to tax the power to destroy? - It depends. - If it is used for regulation, as when it is used as an implement of police power, then it is the power to destroy. - But if it is used for the purpose of generating revenues, then it cannot be allowed to confiscate or destroy. Purpose of Taxation 1. Revenue 2. Police Power (regulation) 3. Protection of local industries against foreign invasion 4. Promotion of growth of local industries 5. Reduction of social inequality -

Stages of Taxation 1. Levy/imposition – enactment of a tax law 2. Assessment/collection 3. Payment/satisfaction

Principles of a Sound Tax System 1. Fiscal Adequacy – to meet the needs of the government 2. Theoretical Justice – a sound tax system is based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay 3. Administrative Feasibility – tax laws and regulations must be capable of effectively being enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. Uniformity in Taxation - Persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. - Progressive system of taxation = directory, and not a source of justiciable right; not a self-executing provision - Regressivity is not a negative standard for courts to enforce

Methods by which the State interferes with private rights

Double Taxation - Why does jurisprudence prohibit double taxation? - It violates the equal protection clause. Other persons among the same class are taxed twice while the others are not. - Direct Double Taxation - Indirect Double Taxation – different jurisdictions/different purpose - International Double Taxation

Presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with

How can International Double Taxation be prevented by International Treaties? 1. Credit Method – subtract the amount taxed in one jurisdiction to the taxable amount in the other jurisdiction 2. Exemption Method – payment in another jurisdiction exempts a person from paying in the other

Exercised primarily by the Legislature

OVERVIEW OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS Similarities Differences They are inherent powers Extent of regulation of the State and may be PP: liberty and property exercised without express ED and Tax: only property constitutional grant Not only necessary but Delegation indispensable PP and Tax: may be exercised only by the government

ED: may be exercised by some private entities Benefits property/individual enjoys as a result of the exercise of the powers PP: no concrete benefit; just an altruistic feeling of being able to contribute to the general welfare; ED: Just Compensation Tax: benefits-received principle Benefits society derives from the exercise of the powers PP (pinaka-KJ): General Welfare ED (pinaka-fair): Property to be used for public use Tax (pinaka-dupang): Public service Nature of property subject ot restraint PP: Noxious ED and Tax: Wholesome

BILL OF RIGHTS Limits the inherent powers People v. Marti - Bill of Rights is not applicable to private acts. - There was no need for a warrant in the search and seizure in this case as the evidence secured was voluntary in character; it was turned over Estrada (Jinggoy) v. Sandiganbayan - Sen. Jinggoy filed a motion to suppress evidence as the evidence would have enabled the witness Benhur Luy to point out and specify the check and cash disbursement records -

Sen. Jinggoy argued that Benhur Luy’s act of accessing the computer of JLN Corporation was unconstitutional and violated his right against unlawful searches and seizures. - According to Sen. Jinggoy, Benhur Luy was acting as an agent of the State as he was under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) - The SC ruled that the Luy’s act of accessing the records from the computer is private in character and thus, the evidence is admissible, reiterating the principle in People v. Marti - Luy being under the WPP did not make him an agent of the State Republic v. Sandiganbayan - Revolution is the complete overthrow of the established government by those previously subjected by it - Interregnum is the intervening period i.e. from February 25 up to March 24, 1986 - Does the exclusionary rule apply in the interregnum? 1. YES. Even though there was no Constitution then, we were still bound by international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, although not legally-binding, contains rights which are accepted as generally-accepted principles of international law. 2. We are still bound to assume these obligations even if we are under a de facto government -

DUE PROCESS There is no definite definition of due process (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City of Manila) - What we can say is that it is a standard of governmental action to not be arbitrary - The test in determining compliance with due process is REASONABLENESS Saunar v. Executive Secretary - PAGC rules provide for the right to be present in a clarificatory hearing. - Due process is a malleable concept grounded on fairness and equity and depends on the type of proceedings involved. - If the very rules of the administrative agency provide for a right to a hearing, then such shall be followed. Otherwise, it will be a deprivation of due process. -

Hildawa v. Enrile - Law enforcers cannot kill criminals as they become prosecutors, judges, and executioners by their acts - Burden of proof when a suspect is killed: police #EndEJKs - The SC directed: 1. The agencies to exercise strict supervision; 2. There must be a determination of self-defense, defense of relatives, or fulfillment of a duty Rights protected under Art. III, Sec. 1 - Is an unborn child entitled to due process? o Art. II, Sec. 12. It is the obligation of the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn upon conception. Thus, the legislature is prevented from enacting a measure legalizing abortion (Imbong v. Ochoa) - Between the life of the mother and the life of the child, which prevails? - Both. Should the unborn be aborted, it should not be intentional. Imbong v. Ochoa - The SC prevented the ruling in Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion up to the second trimester from being applicable in this jurisdiction - Life begins at fertilization which is the moment when the sperm cell and the egg cell meet. Fertilization is synonymous to conception. - Implantation is when the fertilized egg implants itself to the uterus Cornejo v. Gabriel - A public office is a public trust, and is not considered a property of petitioner. Thus, not being property, public office could not come within the constitutional guaranties of due process. Chavez v. Romulo - PNP issued IRR prohibiting carrying of firearms outside of homes - Are licenses property rights? - No. permits and licenses are revocable at will by the government. It is a mere privilege - Chavez asserts that there is a right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. - Chavez, however, interpreted it wrongly. The 2nd amendment pertains to a collective right to bear arms to defend the State. There is no individual entitlement to the right to bear arms.

Procedural Due Process - Procedure before depriving a person of his life, liberty, or property Substantive Due Process - Justification in depriving a person of his life, liberty, or property. - Reasonableness of State interference Whitelight Corporation v. City of Manila - Requisites for substantive due process = similar to requisites for police power: 1. Lawful subject 2. Lawful means - It is unreasonable to immediately ascribe immorality to persons availing of wash rates Lawrence v. Texas - Sodomy should not be prohibited if those engaged in it are consenting adults - Law prohibiting sodomy infringes on the right to privacy of consenting adults engaging in consensual sexual activity Procedural Due Process Requirements 1. Impartial court/impartial tribunal which is competent to hear the matter before it o Voluntary inhibition: discretionary upon the judge but it does not give them unlimited prerogative. It must be based on rational and logical assessment of the circumstances People v. Ong - The judge made an extrajudicial remark against a key witness. The said extrajudicial remark should have made the judge inhibit - However, remarks during trial are not to be taken against a judge Kilosbayan v. Janolo - Membership in a fraternity should not bar a judge from investigating or acting upon a case - Membership in a college fraternity should not compel a judge to inhibit 2. Jurisdiction over the person/subject matter - Summons notifies a defendant of the allegations against him

- Opportunity to be heard - Right to Appeal – a mere statutory privilege – means that there are requirements to be complied with before one could avail of it - Judgement rendered upon lawful hearing stating the factual and legal bases of the decision - So that the losing party may have the basis for appealing a decision/judgement - Applies only to judgement on the merits - Violation of this rule nullifies the decision Administrative Due Process 1. Right to a hearing (usually dispensable) o Exception to the dispensability of the right to a hearing: when the rules of the body expressly provide for a right to a hearing (Saunar v. Executive Secretary) 2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. Decision must have support 4. Substantial evidence – evidence a reasonable mind would accept as true 5. Decision rendered on the basis of the evidence presented 6. Independent decision-making of the tribunal 7. Parties must know the issues and reasons for the decision rendered Is there a right to cross-examine in administrative proceedings? - No. Administrative proceedings are not trial-type proceedings. Litigants may propound questions through the hearing officer. Does the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration cure due process defects? - Generally, yes. - Exception: if the MR was instituted primarily to raise the issue of violation of the right to due process and the lack of opportunity to be heard (Fontanilla v. COA) Right to be furnished copies of co-respondent’s counter-affidavits Estrada v. Ombudsman Ombudsman v. Reyes There is no right to be furnished There is a right to be furnished copies of the co-respondents’ copies of co-respondent’s countercounter-affidavits affidavits as it is a substantial evidence against him In the preliminary investigation An administrative case stage; criminal case

Nothing in the rules of procedure before the Ombudsman state anything about the right to be furnished copies of the counteraffidavits of co-respondents Purpose of the preliminary Purpose here is to determine investigation is to determine liability wherein penalties are probable cause involved and could immediately be imposed Estrada still had ways to obtain the No other ways to obtain the counter-affidavits of co-respondents counter-affidavits as judgement is immediately rendered Ombudsman was acting as the Ombudsman was acting as the investigating officer impartial tribunal Should an administrative case lay down the charges as specific as in criminal cases? PAGCOR v. Marquez - The SC held that the failure to designate the offense specifically and with precision is of no moment in this administrative case. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. The law simply requires that the civil servant is informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him in a clear and concise manner to give the person a chance to answer the allegations intelligently Administrative disciplinary proceedings in academic cases - Governed by the rules in Guzman v. National University, and not the rules in Ang Tibay v. CIR 1. Students must be informed of the nature and cause of accusations; 2. Students must have the right to answer; 3. Students must be informed of the evidence against them; 4. Students may adduce evidence in their defense; 5. Evidence should be duly considered Go v. Letran - Mere notice is sufficient. - While the petitioners state that Mr. and Mrs. Go were “never given an opportunity to assist Kim,” the records show that the respondents gave them

two (2) notices, dated December 19, 2001 and January 8, 2002, for conferences on January 8, 2002 and January 15, 2002. Thus, the respondents had given them ample opportunity to assist their son in his disciplinary case. Cudia v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy - The determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due process, education, and property should be placed in the context of the Honor Code. - All the administrative remedies were exhausted. A student of a military academy must be prepar ed to subordinate his private interest for the proper functioning of the institution. The PMA may impose disciplinary measures and punishments as it deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the institution. PMA has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA has a right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of the internal rules and regulations. - Cudia has been given opportunity to be heard and to counsel through the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) UP Board of Regents v. CA - May a graduate’s doctorate degree be withdrawn by a university even though the deliberations regarding such withdrawal occurred after the graduate had already received such degree? - Yes. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one's side of a controversy or a chance seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been denied due process. In the case at bar, Celine was informed in writing of the charges against her and given opportunities to answer them. She was asked to submit her written explanation which she submitted. She, as well, met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In addition, she sent several letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her position Hierarchy of Rights Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills - Picketing is an exercise of the fundamental freedom of expression. In the hierarchy of rights, freedom of expression and fundamental rights occupy a higher position for they are imprescriptible unlike property rights which are prescriptible.

- The property rights of respondent who allegedly suffiered loss due to the picketing of its employees must yield to the exercise of the fundamental freedom to express themselves. Void-for-Vagueness - When men must guess and differ as to its application Facial Challenges - A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible ‘chilling effect’ upon protected speech. The theory is that ‘[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.’ - Not applicable to assail the constitutionality of laws other than free speech cases (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan) - Dispenses with the actual case/controversy requirement Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan - Indeed, an “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement of “actual case and controversy” and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual concreteness. Publication - Private laws should still be published as long as it applies to the public in general (Tañada v. Tuvera) - Exception: internal laws, letters of instructions, interpretations EQUAL PROTECTION - Art. III, Sec. 1 - Legal Equality is not absolute equality, it admits of classifications provided they are: 1. Based on substantial distinctions; 2. Germane to the purpose of the law; 3. Not limited to present conditions; 4. Applies to all members of the same class

Garcia v. Drilon - R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (VAWC) is valid and constitutional and does not violate the equal protection of the law. History, statistics show that women are most of the time subjected to violence. There is a real, substantial, and valid classification between men and women. People v. Cayat - Reaction of ethnic people who consume alcohol which causes them to disturb peace and order is a valid classification in penalizing them when they are caught with liquor. Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission - There was no valid classification when the Commission was formed to investigate only anomalies committed by the past (Arroyo) administration. The Commission could have been saved by a single letter “s”. Mirasol v. DPWH - There was a valid classification and distinction between motorcycles and other vehicles such that even a child would notice the difference. STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Review

Rational Basis Standard Quality and amount of Evaluating Economic legislations governmental interest classifications based on and regulations brought to justify the gender, race, etc. regulation of fundamental freedoms (i.e. regulation of free speech) Government has the burden to prove that (a) the classification is done pursuant to achieving a compelling state interest; and (b) the regulation is the least restrictive means

Ø A legislative regulation that affects a fundamental freedom is presumed to be unconstitutional Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City - Involves curfew - Petitioners claim that liberty to travel is a fundamental right calling for the application of the strict scrutiny test - Right to travel is recognized as a fundamental right (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 Const.) and is embraced under the general concept of liberty SEARCHES AND SEIZURES The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Const.) Stonehill v. Diokno - Petitioners are invoking the right which is personal to the corporation - General warrants are prohibited by the Constitution, and the search warrants subject of this case were too sweeping and too general. First, they failed to indicate a specific provision of law which was violated in connection with the documents and pieces of evidence sought to be secured. Second, the pieces of evidence and documents sought to be secured were also too general. The warrants pertained to the seizure of documents relating to the business transactions of the corporations regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board - Right against unreasonable searches and seizures also apply to aliens

Bache & Co. v. Ruiz - Corporations may object against unreasonable searches and seizures - Exception: Police power, taxation – State may examine books and accounts Purpose of the right: to preserve the sanctity of the home - The right to privacy before was confined to physical intrusion (Olmstead v. U.S.) - The notion changed in the case of Katz v. U.S. where the right to privacy was applied to telephone conversations - US Supreme Court: use of telephone booth presupposes that the conversation is only between the two persons conversing - What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. In this case, petitioner, being the user of a telephone booth, is entitled to assume that when he closes the booth’s door behind him, the words he utters into the mouthpiece of the telephone would not be broadcast or revealed to the world. Ø Your mobile phone may now be used to violate your fundamental right. That is why the Constitution must be dynamic. Does the provision prohibit all searches and seizures? Ø No. Only unreasonable searches and seizures. Is the presumption of regularity a defense in violations of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Const.? Ø No. In Sony Music v. Concepcion, the SC said that to hold so would render the constitutional provision nugatory. Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot overcome Sec. 2, Art. III Are checkpoints legal? Valmonte v. De Villa - Petitioner’s contention: checkpoints give authorities blanket authority to apprehend and even harass - SC: checkpoints are necessary in furtherance of public security - SC took judicial notice of the shift to urban centers of insurgents - While checkpoints are susceptible to abuse, all powers of government are also susceptible to abuse

- Inconvenience is a simple price to pay for public security Should checkpoints be announced? - No. it would forewarn those who intend to violate the law How should police officers conduct checkpoints? - Only visual searches are allowed. Nobody should search the occupants of the vehicles. When you give your consent to be searched, that is deemed to be a waiver on your part Requisites of a valid search warrant 1. Probable Cause – reasonable ground of suspicion backed up by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves. Kinds of probable cause: a. Executive Determination – during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing the information in court b. Judicial Determination – during preliminary examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest Ø Note: Motion for judicial determination of probable cause is now prohibited as it is redundant, being a constitutional duty of a judge already Mendoza v. People - Judge does not act as an appellate court of the findings of the prosecutor; he makes an independent determination - Only a judge determines probable cause under Sec. 2, Art. III - Although jurisprudence and procedural rules allow it, a judge must always proceed with caution in dismissing cases due to lack of probable cause, considering the preliminary nature of the evidence before it General Rule: Bureau of Immigration does not have the power to issue a warrant of arrest Exception: if the said warrant is issued in carrying out the order of deportation (Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board) c. Determination by Police Officers – determination during hot pursuit for the purpose of effecting an arrest under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 2. Determined personally by the judge Personal determination

- Evaluation of the report of the prosecutor - Judge should not blindly adhere to the prosecutor’s report - Failure to satisfy this guarantee may be a ground to enjoin criminal proceedings Hao v. People - Judge merely tasked to determine the probability that the accused is guilty - Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested. This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. 3. Examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce - Rule 126, Sec. 5, Rules of Court: Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. - There must be searching questions and answers; the searching questions must be probing and exhaustive; judge must make his own inquiry into the intent of the application - Judge must take depositions of applicants and witnesses for the judge to determine probable cause 4. Warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons things to be seized - Particularity of description is mandated in order to avoid general warrants - General warrants: search/arrest warrant that allows the seizure of other persons/things other than that indicated in the warrant; gives the executing officer discretion in executing the warrant (Worldwide Web Corporation v. People) - Particularity is satisfied when the things described bear direct relation to the offense - Particularity is not technical precision. Only reasonable particularity (Vallejo v. CA) as to leave no doubt on the part of the authorities. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for applicants to obtain a search warrant

Is an application for a search warrant a criminal action? - No. Prosecution’s conformity is needed in criminal actions - An application for a search warrant is a special criminal process, not a criminal action (Id.) PLDT v. Razon - A search warrant must be issued in connection with one specific offense to prevent scatter-shot warrants - Subjects of search warrants: 1. Subject of the offense; 2. Fruits of the offense; and 3. Things to be used to commit the offense Laud v. People - Would reasonable lapse of time between the commission of the crime and application for search warrant affect the validity of the application for the search warrant? Ø No. The delay may be caused by fear - May human corpses be subject of a search warrant? Ø Yes. Personal property under Rule 126, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court1 means something which is capable of being moved freely Would 6 counts of murder violate the one specific offense rule? - No. there’s still only one offense. (Laud citing Columbia Pictures v. CA) Mistake in the name indicated in the warrant? - Still valid. Mistake in the name of the accused does not invalidate the search warrant provided there was still particularity in the place to be searched (People v. Tiu Won Chua) John Doe/Jane Doe warrant = still valid, provided there is sufficient descriptio personae or the ability of the victim to identify the assailant/accused (Nalla v. Barroso) without difficulty (Uy v. BIR) Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. 1

Uy v. BIR - General descriptions will not invalidate the entire warrant if other items have been particularly described - Search warrant is severable – those generally described may be cut off Rule 126, Sections 7-12 of the Rules of Court Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. Ø Officer refused admittance in the place to be searched may break in or break out, provided he gives prior notice of his purpose (“Knock and announce principle” – an Anglo-American Law principle) Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Ø Persons who need to be present when search is conducted: 1. Lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or 2. 2 witnesses of legal age in the same locality People v. Punzalan - 2nd requirement applies only if the lawful occupant/family member is absent Bulauitan v. People - Departure from the procedure renders a search invalid People v. Court of Appeals - Wife refused to witness the conduct of the search while the suspect was not around

- There’s still a valid search because there is no valid reason for the witness (the wife) to refuse People v. Del Castillo - Lawful occupants must be the ones to accompany the authorities - Presence of Brgy. Tanod is not necessary - Lawful occupants were asked by the police to stay on a particular location and not witness the search = invalid search Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. Ø Time of making a search: General rule: Daytime Exception: When there is a particular instruction to conduct the search at night Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. Ø How long is a search warrant valid? 10 days from its date Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. Ø Receipt of property seized must be given to: 1. Lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or 2. 2 witnesses of legal age in the same locality Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized

Whether the receipt has been given to (a) lawful occupant/any family member in his absence; or (b) 2 witnesses of legal age residing in the same locality 2

to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. People v. Go - Inventory must be made under oath, otherwise, contempt may lie - Presumption of regularity will not lie in favor of the authorities who served the warrant (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 112 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. Ø Inventory of seized items, return, and proceedings must be duly verified and under oath Ø Return: report on the implementation of search warrant Ø No return: court summons person upon whom such warrant was issued and person must explain why there was no return Ø Violation of Sec. 12 or the above makes an officer liable for contempt of court People v. Huang Zen Hua - There must be notice and demand from the officer concerned before breaking in - Lawful entry is an indispensable predicate of a reasonable search - “Knock and announce” principle

-

Non-compliance with this principle renders the search invalid, ergo, evidence seized is inadmissible in evidence

Is the rule requiring police officers to secure a search warrant absolute? - No. - Exceptions: Warrantless searches (IMC-PWESV) 1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Search of moving vehicles; 3. Customs searches; 4. Plain view doctrine; 5. Waiver; 6. Emergency & exigency circumstances; 7. Stop-and-frisk; and 8. Visual searches at checkpoints 1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13) Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. Requisites of search incident to a lawful arrest: a. Item to be searched is within the arrestee’s area of immediate control b. Search is contemporaneous with the arrest Ø Unlawful arrest = no valid warrantless search; illegal arrest = subsequent search is illegal Ø Is this the same as the plain view doctrine? o No. In plain view, search precedes arrest; plain view = inadvertent; search incident to a lawful arrest = intentional People v. Calantiao - Under the plain view doctrine, the discovery of an object is inadvertent; unlike in searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the discovery/search was deliberate - While there could be plain view in searching a person arrested, it is under Rule 126, Sec. 13 – it has a different legal basis. In Calantiao, the search was made incidental to a lawful arrest

- The plain view doctrine is also inapplicable to the present case as it applies only to cases where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the offender, but nevertheless stumbles upon incriminating evidence. Ø May search precede the arrest? General Rule: Arrest precedes search Exception: People v. Racho - A search substantially contemporaneous with the arrest; when there is probable cause at the outset to effect the arrest - Accused-appellant herein was not committing any offense in the presence of the police officers, neither did the police officers have personal knowledge that the accused-appellant had just committed a crime except for the information relayed by the confidential agent. Probable cause: Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b) - 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 Veridiano v. People - The basis of the arrest in this case was a tip - SC said that a hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest - A tip is not probable cause under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (b) 2. Search of moving vehicles Ø Why is this an exception to the need for searches to have warrants? Caballes v. People - Kinds of searches to be done to vehicles: a. In moving vehicles, what can be done are routine inspections; but physical intrusion goes to far (G.R.) b. Extensive searches are allowed when there is probable cause as to the fact that (a) the motorist is an offender; and (b) that the things to be searched evidence a crime (XPN) Example: the distinctive smell of marijuana Ø How about persistent reports of a rampant smuggling of firearms, contrabands? o Still does not justify warrantless search

Ø What kind of reports, then, justify warrantless searches? o Confidential or classified information regarding the fact that evidence could be found in the vehicle Search incident to a lawful arrest Extensive search of a moving vehicle Reliable tip is not enough for Reliable tip is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless arrest 3. Plain view doctrine Requisites: (VIA) a. Valid intrusion/prior justification to be in the place; b. Discovery of evidence is inadvertent; without need of further search; c. It is immediately apparent that the evidence is a contraband/used in the commission of a crime Ø Buy-bust operations where the house of the accused was searched Ø However, a search warrant being executed whereby the officers inadvertently came across a contraband is still covered by the plain view doctrine Ø Prior justification = search warrant 4. Stop-and-frisk Terry v. Ohio - Officer McFadden, 62, had a reputation of apprehending pickpockets - The US Supreme Court held that there are two governmental interests involved in this case. first, the stop and frisk search conducted by McFadden is an effective crime prevention technique. In this case, McFadden properly observed that a crime may be well underway because of the actuations of Chilton and Terry. Second, it is within government interest for a law enforcement officer, like McFadden, to protect himself and ensure that the person he/she is dealing with is not carrying a concealed weapon which could potentially be fatally used against him. - The degree of evidence or state of facts sufficient to justify a limited search for weapons, as in this case, does not have to be equivalent to that required for the existence of probable cause. The standard is whether a reasonably

prudent man would be warranted in the belief that his safety and that of others is at risk. - Terry Search: there must be a genuine reason People v. Cogaed - Citing Esquillo v. People, the SC ruled that a single suspicious circumstance is not enough; there must be more than 1 to make up a reasonable belief - In Esquillo, Justice Bersamin dissented by saying that police officers must not rely on a single suspicion. There should be the presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, taken together, warranted reasonable belief of criminal activity. - 2-fold interests served by stop-and-frisk: a. Crime prevention & detection; and b. Officer safety & self-preservation Requisites for stop-and-frisk searches: a. Genuine reason – not just a mere hunch/suspicion – more than 1 circumstance leading up to a conclusion that there is a criminal activity afoot; a series of circumstances b. Circumstances must be known to the police officers based on experience and training Veridiano v. People - Reasonable persons act nervous in a checkpoint. Therefore, simply being nervous is not enough for there to be a genuine reason - Moreover, the police officers had no personal knowledge of any fact proving that Veridiano had just committed an offense, other than the hearsay tip. Comerciante v. People - The act of standing & passing something to another person is not a crime - Comerciante’s acts of standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts, or acts that are enough to create a reasonable inference that criminal activity is afoot which would form basis of PO3 Calag to perform a stop and frisk search. - Waiver Requisites of a valid waiver: a. Existence of a right; b. Person involved has actual/constructive knowledge of such right; c. Intent to relinquish such right; d. Waiver extends only to arrest

Villanueva v. People - Waiver of right to question legality of illegal arrest is not a waiver of the right to question the legality of search - Example: there is a checkpoint. Police asked you to open the compartment. You said, “Yes, by all means.” You waived your right to question the legality of the search conducted against you and the shabu seized in your car is admissible against you - The proper time to assail the legality of arrest is the arraignment Veridiano v. People - Lack of resistance/silence is not equivalent to consent to be searched - Consent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence People v. Cogaed - Burden of proof to establish waiver = prosecution - Customs Searches Papa v. Mago - Rationale why customs searches is an exception: automobile is a highly powered vehicle - Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons with police authority to search, seize, and enter any land/enclosure which is not a dwelling (Sec. 2203) Salvador v. People - Drug trafficking and smuggling by Philippine Airlines (PAL) personnel - Search was conducted pursuant to police authority under customs law - Reiterated Papa v. Mago - Also a search of a moving vehicle - If it is a dwelling, it is immobilized. Therefore, there is an opportunity to secure a warrant. for moving vehicles, there is no such time Dela Cruz v. People - Routine security check had the color of a state-related function thus, People v. Marti does not apply - Requirements for search to be under customs search: (PEN) a) Persons conducting search were exercising police authority under customs law b) Search conducted is for the enforcement of customs law c) Place searched is not a dwelling

- Cutiepie Flores, et al. were not conducting search pursuant to the enforcement of customs laws - Nevertheless, the search was valid. The search was consented. The presentation was voluntarily made by Dela Cruz for x-ray inspection - Entering an airport is deemed a waiver of the right to question the legality of searches - Exigent & Emergency Circumstances People v. De Gracia - Raids & searches and seizures during the existence of a coup d’etat were made under exigent and emergency circumstances - Police/agents had no opportunity to apply for search warrants Ø You were apprehended for drunk driving. There’s a hunch on the part of police authority that you were involved in a rape case that happened 5 hours ago. Police wanted to seize your phone to verify. May they do so without a warrant? Riley v. California - Search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest of digital contents of a cellphone is invalid because digital information stored on a cellphone could not be used to harm an arresting officer making the arrest. The inspection must be limited to the physical features of the phone R.A. 10586 – Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act (aka dapat marunong ka mag-dala ng kalasingan act. Jk.) Ø Probable cause to subject person for drug screening/sobriety test: the way one drives Ø Apparent indications & manifestations of driving under the influence (DUI): overspeeding, swerving, lane straddling, weaving, sudden stops Ø Failed sobriety tests: breath analyzer to check blood alcohol concentration levels Ø Probable cause for drug use: drug screening Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court – Warrantless Arrests a. In flagrante delicto arrests

b. Hot pursuit c. Escapees Note: in (a) and (b), the person arrested should be brought to the nearest police station or jail In flagrante delicto arrests 1. Overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, attempting to commit a crime 2. In view of a police officer/arresting officers People v. Badilla - Police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant because there was a report of a man indiscriminately firing a gun - Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket is an overt act for the police - The time element involved in the case precluded the police officers from obtaining a warrant. Badilla’s act of pulling something from his pocket constituted an overt act which aroused the suspicion of the police officer who arrested him and believed that then and there was going to be able to draw a gun from his pocket considering the report relayed to him and his team. Miguel v. People - Brgy. Tanod & Chairman = law enforcement officers in the context of Art. III of the Const. - Bantay Bayan perforns a state-related function - SC: not a valid warrantless arrest on account of public display of private parts. If it were so, the proper charge should have been filed. Also, not a case of hot pursuit; police officers had no personal knowledge. There was no valid arrest that preceded the search, therefore, marijuana obtained is not admissible. Homar v. People - No valid in flagrante delicto arrest as the place where Homar crossed was not identified - Is the filing of a criminal charge a condition precedent to prove validity of warrantless arrest? o No. police officers/prosecution must still prove validity of warrantless arrest

- As opposed to Miguel v. People, the lack of criminal charges for showing of private parts merely bolstered the incredibility of the arrest based on the circumstances present - Validity of warrantless arrest is crucial to the validity of a search incident thereto People v. Doria - Entrapment has a negative meaning under US Jurisprudence – according to them, it connotes trickery - In our jurisdiction, however, there must be a distinction between entrapment and instigation Entrapment Instigation Criminal offense comes from Criminal offense comes from the offender’s mind the police officer/instigator - Buy-bust is in the nature of an in flagrante delicto arrest which is the usual mode of arresting under R.A. 9165 Umil v. People - A rebel may be arrested without a warrant anytime as rebellion is a continuing offense - In flagrante delicto arrest may be done as long as a police officer perceives that a crime is being committed Hot Pursuit Pestilos v. Generoso - 3rd type of determination of probable cause - Police officer determines probable cause for purposes of effecting an arrest under Rule 113 Sec. 5 (b) - A hearsay tip does not justify a warrantless arrest under hot pursuit. There must be personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances - NOTE: Confidential information may be sufficient for a warrantless search of a moving vehicle - SC: in determining probable cause, police officer may rely on the circumstances and reasonably trustworthy information as well as personal knowledge - Reasonably trustworthy information: may be a witness/victim of the crime; police officers need not verify information - Requisites: 1. Crime had just been committed;

2. Personal knowledge of the arresting officer that the person to be arrested has committed it Administrative arrests Ø May administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest? General Rule: No. Exception: Deportation provided there is a final order of deportation; for carrying out a final order finding a violation of the law Ø How about the random conduct of drug tests? Randomized drug tests to students and employees do not violate the right to privacy RIGHT TO PRIVACY - The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities (Cruz, 2015) Olmstead Ruling v. Katz Ruling Olmstead v. US Katz v. US Search and seizure clause did not One who occupies a telephone booth prohibit non-trespassory wiretaps, who closes the door behind him is only physical trespass is prohibited; entitled to assume that the words he objects seized must be tangible speaks to the mouthpiece would not be broadcast to the world - Thank God for Katz for the protection we now enjoy in our communications Disini v. Secretary of Justice - Realtime data collection which does not require a warrant but only due cause is not valid. Due cause is insufficient as it has no precedence in law/jurisprudence; leaves unbridled discretion to police officers; Sec. 12 of the Cybercrime Law does not define due cause -- it is akin to a general search warrant prohibited by the Constitution 2 categories of privacy: 1. Decisional privacy – right to independence in making certain important decisions 2. Informational privacy – right to: (a) not have private information regarding one’s self disclosed; and (b) to live free from surveillance

2 tests to determine whether or not right to privacy is infringed or the reasonable expectation of privacy test: 1. Subjective test – person’s expectation of privacy by his conduct 2. Objective test – person’s expectation of privacy is recognized by society as reasonable Sps. Ching v. Choachuy - Video surveillance cameras should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy - There is reasonable expectation of privacy in business areas Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College - Right to privacy online depends on privacy tools - There must be a manifestation by a user of an intent to keep his posts private (i.e. Only Me, Custom in Facebook posts) - A setting of “Friends” or “Friends Only” does not bolster Vivares’ contention that there is a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not a guarantee that it would not be viewed by other persons who are not your friends - Objective reasonable expectation of privacy = “Only Me” or “Custom” Gamboa v. Chan - No violation of right to privacy as surveillance on Gamboa was an inherent factor in investigation and intelligence gathering - The state interest of dismantling private army groups far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the writ of habeas data will not lie Morfe v. Mutuc - SALNs do not violate the right to privacy - A public officer is bereft of constitutional protection. - The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act could also be hardly declared as unconstitutional when one takes into account the harsh and compelling realities of public service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice Pollo v. Constantino-David - Personal files in a computer obtained without consent of the user is not a violation of the right to privacy

- It must be assessed in the context of employer relations - There is a reduced expectation of privacy in a workplace especially in the public sector - Even assuming, arguendo, that he had put up a reasonable expectation of privacy, such would be rebutted by the CSC’s policy under Office Memorandum No. 10 S. 2002 wherein it was explicitly stated that there is no expectation of privacy relative to the use of computer resources of the CSC. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Const.) Thomas Jefferson: You cannot say that you are free if you are uninformed. Ø Free speech is the essence of a democratic society Chavez v. Gonzales - Mere statements by the Secretary of Justice were enough to violate free speech - Free speech entails ability to discuss only matters of public interest without censorship or fear of punishment - The right to dissent; constitution protects even the ideas and opinions we hate - As Justice Holmes put it, “Freedom for the thought that we hate as much as the thought that we agree with.” - Constitutional expression includes those that are instructive, informative, religious, etc. - A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content (content-based regulation) is given the strictest scrutiny, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger test. This rule applies equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media Ø Art. III, Sec. 4 does not compel you to speak, it includes the right to be silent

Ø In Diocese of Bacolod, the SC cited Commissioner Lino Brocka’s proposal to include “expression” in Art. III, Sec. 4 in order to make it more expansive Ø Are all speeches treated the same? o No. even if a speech is protected, the level of protection varies. Not everything we say/express is protected o Commercial speeches are not the same as political speeches, the latter is given more protection 3 tests: 1. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – permits limitation on speech if there is a rational correlation with the speech and the evils feared - Under this test, a person could be punished for his ideas even if they only tended to create the evil sought to be prevented. It was not necessary to actually create the evil; a mere tendency toward the evil was enough (Cruz, 2015) 2. Balancing of Interest Test – if in a given situation it should appear that there is urgent necessity for protecting the national security against improvident exercise of freedom of expression, the right must yield (Id.) 3. Clear and Present Danger Test – where speech must be restrained as the speech will lead to a substantive danger the government has a right to prevent - Requires proximity and degree - The rule is that the danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed. The term clear seems to point to a causal connection with the damage of the substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present refers to the time element (Cruz, 2015) 4 aspects of Art. III, Sec. 4: 1. Freedom from prior restraint – imposed prior to utterance 2. Freedom from subsequent punishment 3. Freedom of access to information 4. Freedom of circulation

1. Freedom from Prior Restraint - Prior restraint bears heavy presumption of unconstitutionality Content-based regulation Content-neutral regulation Pertains to the subject matter of the Merely concerned with the incidents expression of speech (time, place, manner) Strict scrutiny test; apply the clear Maybe intermediate test/rational and present danger test basis test - The distinction is important for us to know the test applicable - In Chavez v. Gonzales, respondent argued that print media is not the same as broadcast media. The SC disagreed. All subjects of media are subject to the clear and present danger rule even for broadcast media. Unlike the US, the Philippines does not dichotomize. But the clear and present danger test still applies only to content-based regulation. Not every violation of the law justifies the straitjacketing of freedom of speech and of the press - In Chavez, a press statement warning media practitioners is a governmental act. In this case, the SOJ made the press statement in his official capacity - Statements made in an official capacity may be a governmental act; it does not have to be formalized as an Executive Order, Administrative Order, etc. Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC - Does size matter? - Even a COMELEC opinion may be construed as a governmental act - Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 is not applicable because the Diocese is not a holder of a franchise - Provisions cited by the COMELEC only pertain to candidates - If Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 and the Fair Elections Act are invoked, distinguish between public/private individual - Why is the issue of being a content-based and content-neutral regulation relevant in this case? - Size matters: 1. It enhances the efficiency of the communication 2. It conveys the idea that the message is important 3. The larger the tarpaulin, the more message it bears - Thus, the COMELEC’s opinion in this case was a content-based regulation - Property rights were also violated in this case

Soriano v. Laguardia - SC applied the balancing-of-interest test - Parens patriae – the State is the protector of its citizens - In this case, the minors were the ones being protected by the State 1. Medium used – television which is more accessible to children 2. Time slot – primetime while the children are still awake 3. Rating – it was rated as for general viewership - The statements of Brother Eli may be classified as an indecent language to the average child INC v. CA - INC was attacking the Catholic Church which merited their episodes xratings - Opinion here refers to religious speech - SC: the remedy for a doctrine which is attacked is a better doctrine. The best argument against a doctrine attacking another doctrine is a better doctrine Newsounds v. Dy - Atty. Sarangaya: similar to the Rappler drama; is Malacañang’s barring of Rappler a violation of free speech? #UpholdPressFreedom - SC: Based on the circumstances, it appeared that the regulation was contentneutral. But delving deeper into it, it is actually content-based. The SC looked at the factual milieu and the surrounding circumstances of the case - In 2001, Bombo Radyo (which is owned by petitioners in this case) had been aggressive in exposing election irregularities in Isabela which effectively favoured respondent Dy and other members of the Dy political dynasty in this case. Prior to 2002, petitioners never encountered any problems securing permits for the continued operation of their radio stations. It was only in 2002, when herein respondent Mayor Cesar Dy was elected into office that the local government started to impose these additional requirements to substantiate the conversion of petitioners’ property to commercial use. SWS v. COMELEC - COMELEC argued that surveys were detrimental to the electoral process - Justice Kapunan’s dissent: the restriction has a noble purpose – to not pressure the voters - SC: insisted on employing the clear and present danger test using the O’brien test: a government regulation is sufficiently justified when: [1] if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; [3] if the governmental

interest is unrelated to the suppression of freedom of expression; and [4] if the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of interest. - In this case, the provision failed to meet item [3] as there is a causal connection between the expression and the asserted governmental interest which makes such governmental interest related to the suppression of the freedom of expression. Reno v. ACLU - US Supreme Court struck down the “indecent transmission” and “patently offensive” provision of the Communications Decency Act for overbreadth Near v. Minnesota - While liberty of the press is not absolute, the regulation in this case is actually a prior restraint on publication - If the newspaper is consistent in its attack of public officers, the remedy is libel, not the prohibition of publication conveying potentially libelous statements Grosjean v. American Press Co. - The State license tax is a restraint on publication - As opposed to Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – the Php 1,000.00 registration fee is merely administrative and is not directed to the privilege of publication; that in Grosjean attacks the privilege to publish Adiong v. COMELEC - Overbreadth was applied – governmental interest must not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep and infringe on constitutional rights - The COMELEC regulation infringes on the right to property – how to use property (cars) owned by individuals - The way one conveys information is likewise vital - Equalization of opportunities for candidates is not as important as the rights of property owners to express their own views and preferences with their consent - It depends on the property owner’s consent, not the wealth of the candidate - The constitutional objective of providing equal opportunity for rich and poor candidates to inform the electorate could not prevail over a constitutionally protected freedom – compared to the paramount interest of the State in guaranteeing freedom of expression, the constitutional objective is of marginal significance.

Primicias v. Fugoso - BP 880 - The SC juxtaposed the case with Reyes v. Bagatsing - For a permit to be refused to those applying for it, there must be a clear and present danger that the assembly for which the permit is being applied for is illegal. The danger is imminent in character that must be prevented and suppressed. - The licensing authority must use the clear and present danger test - Proximity between the assembly and the substantive evil sought to be prevented - The pertinent provisions of the subject ordinance which grants the Mayor the power to issue permits for the use of public spaces, should mean that the Mayor had no authority to refuse the issuance of such permit, but rather only to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession would be conducted. - Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. Libel Is the right of private citizens to assail the actions of public officials absolute? - No. Are news outfits or publishers always required to be correct in the statements contained in their articles? - No. (New York Times v. Sullivan) - Certain margin of error: How do you quantify this? o The doctrine of actual malice does not require 100% exactitude with respect to the information contained in the article. What is important is that even if there are inaccuracies in the opinion, there is no knowledge that the facts upon which the opinion is based are false or based on a false supposition Tulfo v. People - Tulfo did not make any effort to validate or verify the reports given to him by his sources in the BOC - The SC also used the Journalist’s Code of Ethics - Is the defense that this is a fair commentary on matters of public concern tenable? o In this case, no.

-

Assuming, arguendo, that it is a fair commentary, what should be proved? o Actual malice: actual knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not

New York Times v. Sullivan - The US Supreme Court defined actual malice as: actual knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not Scenario: Mario Ressa wrote a negative opinion on the oust-duterte matrix released by Sal Panelo saying that it was unverified, bogus. Could Sal Panelo sue him? - Qualify. If it is a fair commentary regarding a matter of public concern, then the accuser (Panelo) must prove actual malice i.e. actual knowledge of its falsity and reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or not. The establishment that it is a fair comment regarding a matter of public concern triggers this requirement. - There is no actual malice if Mario Ressa’s opinion was based on an actual fact – the matrix issued by Malacañang/Sal Panelo. - There is actual malice when Mario Ressa assumed that a matrix will be issued which, in his opinion, highlights the stupidity of Panelo. In this case, there was no matrix or concrete fact upon which Mario Ressa could base his opinion. Borjal v. CA Qualifiedly privileged communication under Art. 354 of the RPC 1. Private communications 2. Fair and true report made in good faith without comments or remarks - There was no fair commentary on matters of public concern in Art. 354. But the SC nevertheless ruled that Art. 354 was not exclusive. Art. 354 merely concretizes the same. Is the RPC the source of privileged communications? - No. The Constitution is.

Is there an absolute privileged communication? Absolute privileged Qualified privileged communication communication Privileged speech in Congress Art. 354, Doctrine of Fair Commentaries on Matters of Public Concern Regardless of malice, the Malice is considered person making the statement is immune There is presumption of malice in every defamatory imputation. However, if it is published as a fair commentary on matters of public concern, there is then the need to prove actual malice. In other words, the presumption does not apply to privileged communications (absolute privileged, qualified privileged, and fair commentaries on matters of public concern) because in the latter, there is need to prove actual malice. Ø Actual malice is relevant only when we’re talking about qualified privileged communication • • •

Political speech occupies a higher rank in the levels of speech. Political speech shapes our views Political sovereignty influences the framework of the legal sovereign – the State. We could exercise it by the freedom of speech and expression because said exercise shapes public opinion Free speech, press, builds the very fiber of our democracy

But it does not mean that everything that we say must be left unpunished. UP Faculty case - Group of faculty members criticized the Supreme Court - The exercise erodes the faith of the people in the courts - The statement of the faculty members really accused the SC of injustices Marantan v. Diokno - A public utterance or publication is not to be denied the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending in the courts, upon the theory that in

-

such a case, it must necessarily tend to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice Test in subjudice: clear and present danger test -- that the administration of justice is obstructed; the independence of the courts is prejudiced; or the people’s faith in the courts is eroded

Cabansag v. Fernandez - The letter to the PCAC did not impair the integrity of the Court - It did not attribute anything negative against the Court - Although the remedy resorted to was unprocedural, the SC could not fault a non-lawyer for resorting to such remedy for he was unfamiliar with the procedure Nestle v. Sanchez - The lawyer is responsible for telling his clients the proper conduct before the Court (but I think this was the ruling in Cabansag) - The liberal stance of the SC was caused by the acknowledgement of the euphoria apparently resulting from the re-discovery of a long-repressed freedom. However, the SC noted that in future cases, it will not hesitate to apply the full force of the law on contempt, and punish anyone who attempts to pressure the court to act in one way and not the other. Grievances must be ventilated through the proper channels. The SC compassionately recognized that the respondents in this case were nonlawyers, unaware that their liberties are subject to certain limitations and acts which tend to influence justices or judges of courts amount to an abuse thereof Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak - Movies are covered by the free speech clause but is accorded lesser protection due to the manner and reach of these exhibitions - That’s why we have an MTRCB classifying movies Ayer v. Capulong - A right (right to privacy) is being invoked against another right (freedom of expression) - The SC sided with the freedom of expression - The focus of the movie was not Enrile, but the EDSA revolution

-

For all purposes, Enrile is a public figure, having participated in the EDSA revolution which had become part of our history. He even sits in a very public position – the Senate of the Philippines. He cannot shield himself with the right to privacy as public figures and officials are subjected to a more narrow scope of privacy than private individuals.

Non v. Dames - Do you shed your constitutional rights once you enter the school gates? - True, students are subject to disciplinary rules of the school. But the fact that a student enters the school does not mean that he is no longer a citizen. He does not shed his constitutional rights just because he entered the school gates. - An interpretation of the Manual for Private Schools was to the effect that the contract between the students and the schools is only good for a semester. The SC struck down such interpretation. The student is expected to return for the succeeding semesters until the program is finished. - The school could not invoke academic freedom to suppress free speech but such right is subject to valid limitations. Academic freedom is also not a valid justification to override the fundamental rights guaranteed to the students. The SC even cited Malabanan v. Ramento Obscenity Miller v. California Tests to help state legislatures in enacting statutes re: obscenity 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work appeals to the prurient interests; - Contemporary community standards: contextual, based on the generation 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value Art. 201 of the RPC - Mere possession of obscene materials is not punishable - There must be proof that the possessor has the intent to distribute

Heckler’s Veto - A restriction imposed by the government upon a person’s exercise of his freedom of speech for purposes of maintaining the peace or preventing unlawful or violent reactions to the same. - This was given in the 2014 Bar Examinations (question #15) - The government, in order to preserve public order, opts to suppress a particular form of expression, speech, or publication because of the behavior of the reactors - Of American origin RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 1. Non-establishment clause; 2. Free exercise Aglipay v. Ruiz - Postage stamp containing a religious occasion - Not everything that dictates a religious activity would be violative of the non-establishment clause - The objective here is secular but the religious benefit or propaganda to which the Roman Catholic Church benefitted therefrom is merely incidental Valmores v. Achacoso - Sabadista – first day is Sunday - CHED Memo: school activities shall not violate a student’s religious freedom and if a school activity falls on a day where a student should attend a religious activity, the student should be excused - Religion is rooted in every culture - Even our Constitution recognizes a Supreme Being - Our preamble implores an Almighty God - 2 aspects: o Freedom to believe: absolute; the State does not interfere with the thoughts of a believer (Mr. Canolo is a Satanist) o Freedom to act on one’s beliefs: not absolute; the State has the right to intervene in one’s actions (Mr. Canolo, to please Satan, kills Mr. Mosones)

-

Long as the belief stays in the mind, you may think of whatever no matter how obnoxious it is. But once that belief is externalized, it becomes subject to government regulation CHED Memo: long as there is a certification presented by the student, institutions of higher learning are enjoined to excuse such student Valmores compelled respondent to allow him to participate in the religious activity Observance of a belief is not subject to compromise – in matters of religion, observance is the rule, compliance is the exemption

Masterpiece Bakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Owner of Masterpiece is a devout Christian – does not believe in samesex marriage: “I’ll bake any cake except one that celebrates same-sex unions”, basically. - Colorado Statute: a discriminatory act based on gender, among others, will subject a person to liability - In showing selective hostility to a person’s sincerely held beliefs as basis for his objection to creating a cake for same-sex couples, the Colorado Commission violated the baker’s right to exercise his religion - Couple’s rights in this case must be balanced with a person’s sincerely held beliefs - Colorado Commission showed hostility towards the baker - To Phillips (owner of Masterpiece), his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs Are we supposed to adopt in toto every American case involving Freedom of Religion? Estrada v. Escritor - No. - Supreme Court declared that the PH adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality/accommodation - The benevolent neutrality is the spirit, intent, and framework underlying the religion clauses in our Constitution

-

In deciding Escritor’s plea for exemption based on the free exercise clause, it is the compelling state interest test – the strictest test – that must be applied Establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to contradict – they have the same goal which is to promote religious beliefs and practices Free exercise clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious beliefs by penalties Establishment clause prohibits government from inhibiting religious beliefs by rewarding certain practices Standards of separation: o Strict separation – establishment clause was meant to protect the State from the Church and the State’s hostility towards religion tolerates no intrusion from the Church. Bawal makialam ang simbahan sa estado. § A Jeffersonian view – an absolute barrier between the Church and State needs to be erected o Strict neutrality/governmental neutrality theory – Everson v. Board of Education: wall of separation does not require the State to be religion’s adversary. Rather, the State must be neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers. State power must not handicap nor favor religions. Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action. o Benevolent neutrality/accommodation – wall is meant to protect the Church from the State. Complete opposite of separationist view. Religion plays an important role in the public life of the State as shown by several government practices which to strict neutrality would pose establishment clause questions. This does not prevent government interaction with religion. What the wall suggests is that the protection should be given to the Church from State interference

-

Way to gauge whether a governmental act violates the religion clause is the strict scrutiny test applying the compelling state interest test o Has the statute/government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion?

o Is there a compelling state interest to justify the infringement of religious liberty? o Has the State, in achieving its legitimate purposes, used the least intrusive means possible so that the exercise does not infringe the rights any more than is reasonably necessary to further the State’s legitimate objectives? In Re: Valenciano - Bakit may Chapel sa basement ng QC Hall of Justice? - Supreme Court recognized inherent right of the people to have some form of belief or system - While religious freedom is not absolute, what should be used in determining the validity of an act is the compelling state interest test - It must be demonstrated that the masses in the QC Hall of Justice unduly disrupted the performance of official functions - Is this establishment of religion? o No. it’s an accommodation, not establishment. 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 inhibit such right is an unconstitutional encroachment o Only public welfare may overturn the invocation of the constitutional right Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent - Contrary to Gerona - In Gerona, the SC said that teaching students to salute flags is more important than religious freedom. In this case, the SC accommodated members of Jehovah’s witnesses and granted them exemptions out of respect for their religious beliefs In Gerona, the Supreme Court did not accommodate - The Supreme Court re-examined and abandoned its earlier ruling in Gerona v. Secretary of Education. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, as it involves the relationship of man to his Creator. The SC came to its senses, and realized that it was not persuaded by the reasoning that the religious practice observed by a relatively small portion of the school population would result to the

-

irreverence to the flag and the lack of nationalism feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs would hardly be conducive to the supposed love for the country and its authorities that was sought to be inculcated by the Court in Gerona. NOTE: Our jurisprudential approach ALWAYS accommodates religious practices long as those practices does not adversely affect public welfare

Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union - Union shop clause: employee cannot be hired if he/she is not a member of a union in good standing - An exemption may be granted to a member of the INC Engel v. Vitale - School prayer - Jeffersonian view was applied Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC - SC reiterated the Escritor case as far as benevolent neutrality is concerned Austria v. NLRC - Ecclesiastical affairs v. secular affairs - The grounds cited as just cause is found in the Labor Code - The case does not concern a purely ecclesiastical or religious affair - Purely ecclesiastical or religious affair: one concerning doctrine, or form of worship of the church, or the adoption of laws and regulations for the government of membership - Reason for Austria’s dismissal was due to an employer-employee relationship, and was not religious in nature UCCP v. Bradford - Hiwalayan ng dalawang churches - UCCP assailed the incorporation of Bradford which was not sustained by the SEC

-

Is this issue an ecclesiastical affair or can courts intervene? Courts may intervene. SC recognized Bradford’s right to disaffiliate with another organization via legal means – a secular affair The disaffiliation was effected through the means laid down by the Corporation Code Purely ecclesiastical affair, example: excommunication. So, if you’re a lawyer for a Church, cite your religious doctrines in order to prove that it is an ecclesiastical affair outside the jurisdiction of ordinary courts

Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance - VAT law does not violate free speech as it was an administrative fee, as opposed to Grosjean which had a license/excise tax on free speech - Tax here did not create a burden nor did it impose a tax on the free exercise of religion American Bible Society v. City of Manila - SC invalidated the ordinance taxing petitioner as it was in the form of censorship violating free exercise clause - As far as the requirement on licenses, it does not impose a burden on the enjoyment of the right to religious freedom - City of Manila was powerless to license or tax petitioner as it would impair the free exercise of religion but insofar as its business is concerned, the LGU may regulate and exercise its licensing powers - So, distinguish between license tax on the exercise of the freedom of religion and the licensing powers of the LGU as far as businesses are concerned - Test: if the tax or fee creates a burden on the exercise of the freedom of religion Wisconsin v. Yoder - Amish - There was a rule/law requiring a child to attend school until he reaches the age of 16

-

Which one is more important – the interest of the State to educate the children or the exercise of the Amish people to exercise their religion? Here, the US Supreme Court sided with religious freedom The Amish people sincerely demonstrated their religious belief

LIBERTY OF ABODE, RIGHT TO TRAVEL The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. (Sec. 6, Art. III, 1987 Const.) Right to Travel Ø Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. Ø Limitations: National security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law Genuino v. De Lima - Whether or not Department Circular No. 41 which pertained to the issuance of watchlist orders, Hold Departure Orders (HDO), etc. is unconstitutional - SC: D.C. No. 41 has no legal basis. The DOJ Circular is not a law. The Constitution provides that the right to travel may be impaired as may be provided by law - De Lima argues that the DOJ is exercising its delegated powers pursuant to the Administrative Code - The Administrative Code does not vest the DOJ the power to issue D.C. No. 41. The provisions invoked by the DOJ are mere general provisions which do not grant the DOJ the power to curtail a fundamental right such as the right to travel - There must be a law authorizing an administrative agency to issue watchlist orders, HDOs, etc.

Let’s say you’re a court employee. Can you successfully invoke your right to travel to defeat the requirement by the Immigration Officer for you to procure a travel authority? - NO. Leave Division v. Heusdens - OCA Circular requires court personnel to secure travel notification and authority - Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel (Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Const.) - Supreme Court empowers the courts to regulate all its personnel ergo, the subject OCA Circular - SC cited laws that serve as statutory limitations on the right to travel, such as: 1. Human Security Act of 2010: restricts right to travel of person charged with terrorism 2. Philippine Passport Act of 1986: Secretary of Foreign Affairs may refuse issuance of or withdraw passport of a Filipino Citizen 3. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003: empowers the BI, to manage migration and curb trafficking in persons, to allow its travel control and enforcement unit to offload passengers with fraudulent travel documents, doubtful purpose of travel, including possible victims of human trafficking 4. R.A. 8042 as amended by R.A. 10022 or Migrant Workers Act of 1995: POEA may refuse to issue deployment permit to our migrant workers 5. Anti-Violence Against Women and Children: restricts movement of individual against whom a protection order is intended 6. Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995: Inter-Country Adoption Board may issue rules restrictive of an adoptee’s right to travel to protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful or detrimental to the child - The OCA Circular is based on a constitutional provision

Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City - SC sustained constitutionality of curfew - As compared to adults, the right to travel of minors is much more limited. In fact, there is a law that effectively limits and gives LGUs authority to set curfew hours – P.D. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) Liberty of Abode Ø The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Limitations: lawful order of the court. Not just a court order but a lawful order Villavicencio v. Lukban - Manila mayor had the women of ill-repute rounded up, put on a ship, and transported to Davao City to serve as workers. - The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence. This case justifies one of the basic rights of citizen -the right of domain. - Liberty of Abode is a principle so deeply embedded in our jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature so as not even to require a constitutional sanction. Kahit wala sa Constitution, this is very basic. - The validity of the rule in this case was tested through the strict scrutiny test thru the compelling state interest test FREEDOM OF INFORMATION The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (Sec. 7, Art. III, 1987 Const.)

-

Another aspect of Freedom of Expression because how could the citizens comment on matters of public concern if they do not have information? (Chavez v. Gonzales) If they do not have information/access to information, they would have no intelligible basis to exercise their freedom of expression Constitutional provision talks about access Art. II, Sec. 28 talks about the policy of full public disclosure Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

Sereno v. Committee on Trade and Related Matters - Freedom of Information is not absolute - Petitioner wants information on trade and other related matters in relation to petrol-related products - The case involves a close-door meeting - Exceptions to Freedom of Information: (NITBaC) o National security matters; o Intelligence information; o Trade secrets – how a company produces a certain product; o Banking transactions; and o Criminal matters – information given by informants - The government is invoking privileged information pursuant to the separation of powers which includes close-door cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority), military secrets, diplomatic matters - The fact that some of the Committee members are not cabinet members is of no moment. What determines whether the information is privileged is its nature – whether the information was within the ambit of the exception from the people’s right to access to information Chavez v. Public Estates Authority - Although exchanges between cabinet members are confidential/privileged, once a body or a committee comes up with an official recommendation, then it becomes a definite proposition and the right to access to information already attaches

-

All information during the exploratory stage is not subject to disclosure. But once the committee comes up with an official recommendation, there arises a definite proposition on the part of the government which can be accessed by the citizen pursuant to his right to access information

3 Categories of Information Covered by Art. III, Sec. 7: 1. Official records; 2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, and decisions; and 3. Government research data Why are presidential conversations privileged/excluded from the right to access information? - A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise presidential and judicial matter - Deliberative and pre-decisional matters – privileged - Executive sessions in the Senate are also privileged (tho not really obvious as Senators bask in publicity and attention) Is there an obligation on the part of public officers to produce summaries, tables, charts, explaining the information - No. Not covered by the right to access information - The officer cannot be compelled to summarize the records. The public has to take the information as it is (e.g. does not matter whether the document is voluminous) Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission - Civil service eligibility of the employees - Public concern, public interest is broad and eludes exact definition - It is up to the courts to determine what is a matter of public concern/interest on a case-to-case basis DFA v. BCA International Corporation - Certain information are being requested from the RTC under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

-

-

While in Chavez, it was said that an official recommendation becomes a definite proposition, here, the SC used the doctrine of deliberative and pre-decisional communications. Citing Akbayan v. Aquino, the SC said the privileged character of the information does not end when an agency has adopted a definite information/when a contract has been formalized otherwise, the concept of the privilege will be defeated The limitation on the freedom to access information was to prevent the chilling effect on deliberative communications If the purpose to be served is to protect the frank exchanges of ideas/information between cabinet members, the deliberative process privilege applies However, the SC only partially granted the petition because the one claiming deliberative process privilege must specify the nature of the information. So, it is incumbent upon the parties to assert the nature of the information

Neri v. Senate Committee - Presidential communications privilege may be claimed by the President only, not his/her cabinet members - But the executive secretary may invoke executive privilege long as he does it by authority of the president - Presidential communications are presumptively privileged FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. (Art. III, Sec. 8, 1987 Const.) -

Art. XIII, Sec. 3 (State shall afford full protection to labor #AttyDJMagic) Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, Sub-sec. 5 (The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees) “For purposes contrary to law” – no longer necessary as all rights are subject to this limitation The right to join an organization necessarily includes the right not to join, as a general rule

People v. Ferrera - Involves certain individuals charged with the Anti-Subversion Act - The Anti-Subversion Act outlaws the existence of the Communist Party of the Philippines - Is the Anti-Subversion Act violative of the freedom of association? o No. the Supreme Court made a balancing act between the freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation. There must be a balance (balancing of interests test) between the freedom of association and the State’s right to self-preservation but the Supreme Court in this case sided with the State’s right to self-preservation - Self-preservation is the ultimate value of society. It surpasses and transcends every other value. For if a society cannot protect its own internal structure from an armed internal attack, no subordinate value could be protected Gonzales v. COMELEC - SC ultimately said that R.A. 4880 is broad and sweeping. It suffers from overbreadth. But the Constitution then required a 2/3 vote from the Justices in order to render a statute is null and void. Failing to obtain such 2/3 vote from the Justices in this case, R.A. 4880 was not annulled - Penera v. COMELEC: There is no law penalizing premature campaigning. The interpretation by Justice Carpio was that a candidate only becomes a candidate at the start of the campaigning period, not at the filing of the certificate of candidacy (COC) - Nevertheless, the “majority” opinion, which ironically did not win, was to the effect that the provisions of the law were constitutionally infirm and formidable - In short, freedom of association, as an aspect of freedom of expression, is also subject to the usual standards employed in a free speech case (i.e. overbreadth, as in this case) BPI v. BPI Employees Union - Merger: 2 corporations would merge with one surviving corporation. The surviving corporation would acquire the assets of the absorbed/merged corporation

-

-

FEBTC had employees and employment contracts which BPI was bound to assume BPI’s union security clause – a close-shop clause in its CBA Are these “new” employees from FEBTC covered by this clause? o Justice de Castro said there is no need to differentiate between absorbed employees and incoming employees because both became employees of BPI, the surviving corp., after the effectivity of the CBA The remedy is to absorb these employees but subject to existing union security clauses. The basis of sustaining a union security clause is the State’s interest to protect unionism which prevails over an individual’s preference. The State likewise protects the CBA from impairment (Non-Impairment Clause)

Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union - Members of the INC cannot participate in labor unions - There’s a closed-shop clause in the CBA, meaning only members of the union may maintain their employment - Balancing of interest: Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion viz. Unionism, Non-Impairment - SC: In the Industrial Peace Act, an exception was made to the effect that religious organizations which prohibit their members from joining the unions are not covered by these union security clauses - Despite the Industrial Peace Act being repealed, the principles in this case still apply. Freedom of Religion prevails over Non-Impairment of Contracts Does the exemption impose religious tests for the exercise of a civil or political right? - No. Membership in the religion that prohibits the joining in a religion is not a requirement in the inclusion in the union nor the exclusion from the union nor is there an affirmative act performed by the union or employee - There is no violation of the constitutional right and no religious test shall be employed in the exercise of civil and political rights

Do government employees have a right to organize themselves for mutual aid or protection? - Yes.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. (Sec. 10, Art. III)

SSS v. Court of Appeals - Government employees do not have the right to strike - But according to Fr. Bernas, because the prohibition is statutory, the said prohibition may be lifted by law

-

Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hanjin Shipyard v. Bureau of Labor Relations - There is a difference between a union and a worker’s association. The latter is organized for mutual aid and protection, whereas the former is organized to collectively bargain with the management. But this is entirely the prerogative of the employees, regardless of the composition

-

In Re: Edillon - Is the termination of membership in the IBP on ground of non-payment of IBP dues a violation of the freedom to associate? o No. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the IBP is not violative of his constitutional right to associate. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not yet a member o Integration only provides an official national organization for a well-defined and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member o By virtue of being a lawyer, you are already a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines o Art. VIII of the Constitution even provides that the Supreme Court shall integrate the Philippine Bar o The payment of IBP dues is pursuant to the State interest to elevate the quality of professional legal services o Such compulsion, if there is any, is justified under the exercise of police power of the State Request for Documents in Corona Impeachment - Results of the raffle may be made available to the litigants except: disbarment cases, administrative cases, criminal cases penalized by life imprisonment which are privileged in character

-

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. -

-

Contract: Any lawful arrangement on property or property rights whether express or implied But contract does not include licenses (Chavez v. Romulo). In Chavez, it was held that gun licenses are not contracts within the purview of the due process clause. Public office is not subject to a contract because it is not a property right. (Cornejo v. Gabriel) In fact, the salaries of public officers may be reduced by law. Except those salaries which they have already earned because then, the public officers have already been vested with a property right that may be reduced by legislation Lands of the public domain are also not subject of contractual relations Law: includes executive orders, administrative regulations, and ordinances. But it does not include judicial and quasi-judicial decisions and rules Impair: (RECSRR) Retroactive application of the law; Diminishes the efficacy of the contract; If the law already changes the terms and conditions and alters the intents of the parties; If the period of performance is shortened; Deprives parties of remedies; and Removal or addition of a remedy for the enforcement of a contract. The proper way to say it is “impair the obligations of contracts”. - Example: Mr. Pacumio and Mr. Canolo entered into a contract with a penalty clause which entitles an aggrieved party to recover 5% of the contract price. There’s a law that limits the amount of liquidated damages recoverable is 2% which applies retroactively. There is an impairment of the obligations of contracts between the parties Obligation: the vinculum juris, the law between the parties that binds them to perform their obligations according to their terms and conditions But this constitutional right cannot prevail over:

-

Proper exercise of police power; Freedom of religion (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union) -

Lozano v. Martinez - Does BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) impair the freedom of contract? - No. Non-impairment clause only protects lawful contracts. Contracts that contravene public policy are not lawful. Checks as a medium in commercial transactions, and as usual substitutes for money form part of the banking system and, therefore, not entirely free from the regulatory power of the State BAIL - Sec. 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court: Security given for the release of a person in custody of law guaranteeing his appearance in court given in the form of: corporate surety, property bond, or recognizance - Recognizance: obligation of record entered into before the court guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. A contract between the surety and the State Rationale behind the grant of the right to bail: 1. Presumption of innocence of the accused – essential in observance of criminal due process; and 2. To prepare for his defense without being the subject of punishment even before trial Is the right to bail applicable to soldiers or military personnel? Comendador v. de Villa - No. The right to bail is not applicable to a soldier under court martial because of the disciplinary nature of the military and because by tradition, it is not granted to them for they have the fiduciary capacity to bear arms and thus, the possibility of wreaking havoc Hong Kong v. Olalia - As far as extradition is concerned, the right to bail is applicable although the burden of proof/standards are different. Under 21st Century

3

Not finally disposes of a case

international law, primacy is given in favor of the rights of the individual Burden of proof in extradition cases for purposes of bail: lies with the potential extraditee to show that he/she is not a flight risk

Evidence of guilt is strong, meaning People v. Cabral - Defined evident proof as clear, strong evidence which leads a wellguarded, dispassionate judgement to the conclusion that the offense has been committed as charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered - Presumption great: inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgement, and excludes the probability of any other conclusion - Bail is merely interlocutory3 - Test: Evidence must show evident presumption of guilt or a great presumption of guilt which is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgement which excludes any other contrary conclusion - Not yet proof beyond reasonable doubt for the latter pertains to the proof required in judgements When is bail a matter of right? - All persons in custody before or after conviction of first-level courts (MTCs), or before conviction of second-level courts (RTCs) of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment (Rule 114, Sec. 4, Rules of Court) 1. Persons in custody before or after conviction in MTCs; and 2. Persons in custody before conviction by RTCs of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment When is bail discretionary? - Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary (Rule 114, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)

When may bail be denied? Ø When the penalty imposed by the trial court exceeds 6 years and a showing of the following by the prosecution: (RECPA) a. The accused is a recidivist, a quasi-recidivist, or committed a crime which is aggravated by reiteracion; b. Accused has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of bail without valid justifications; c. Accused committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;s d. Circumstances of the accused’s case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; e. There’s a risk that the accused will commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal (Id.) Leviste v. Court of Appeals - After conviction by the trial court, Leviste asked the Court of Appeals to grant his bail arguing that it was discretionary - SC, citing Regalado and Herrera, ruled: Two applicable rules are followed: 1. After conviction by the RTC imposing imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day not exceeding 20 years, and none of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present, bail is a matter of discretion; 2. After conviction by the RTC imposing imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day not exceeding 20 years, and any of the circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present, no bail shall be granted. (Regalado) - Even if the circumstances under Sec. 5 are not present, the fact that the bail is a matter of discretion does not automatically mean that bail should be granted because it is still a matter of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion exists in the second instance whereby circumstances in Sec. 5 are present and the courts grant bail - The present inclination of procedural rules on bail is to frown on granting of bail pending appeal which is in consonance with the position of the US

-

Bail pending appeal calls for more rigid standards because there is already finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Exception: if the trial court decision changes the nature of the offense from nonbailable to bailable, the appellate courts resolve bail Enrile v. Sandiganbayan - SC gave credence to Enrile’s justification as to his poor health so that he would be entitled to bail which is reflected in Rule 114, Sec. 9 (Circumstances in fixing the bail) - According to the SC, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not considering the health of Enrile which is one of the circumstances laid down in Rule 114, Sec. 9 - The SC took note of the Philippine's responsibility to the international community arising from its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We therefore have the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process and for detainees to avail of such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. - Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. -

Justice Leonen’s dissent, however, is worth considering. He said, “Bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our Rules of Court nor found in any statute or provision of the Constitution.” Leonen theorized that the Supreme Court only granted bail as a special accommodation for the petitioner and he goes on to criticize the decision to wit:

“[This decision] will usher in an era of truly selective justice not based on their legal provisions, but one that is unpredictable, partial and solely grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion.”

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

People v. Escobar - The issue arose as to whether the previous grant of bail was barred by res judicata which is not only unrecognized in criminal cases, but also inapplicable since judgements on bail/orders regarding bail are mere interlocutory orders thus, not covered by res judicata because judgements/orders covered by res judicata must be on the merits - The elements of res judicata are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec. 12, Art. III, 1987 Const.) - Criminal liability attaches in violation of rights of persons under custodial investigations

People v. Yap - Prosecution asks the amount of bail to be pegged at 5.5 million pesos (the amount of civil liability) which the SC dismissed as excessive and unreasonable - The amount of bail should not be pegged as high as the amount of civil liability - The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required MIRANDA RIGHTS Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 4

Even gestures or actions, even written testimonies, and reenactments

Rights covered: 1. Right to remain silent; 2. Right to competent and independent counsel of own choice; 3. Right to be informed of these rights; -

-

-

Covers both admissions and confessions. Admissions are acts or omissions of a party as to relevant facts. Confessions pertain to a declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or any offense included therein. Even includes any evidence communicative4 in nature The rationale is to prohibit the eliciting of a coerced confession. Because an environment dominated by the police, creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which compels a person to confess/admit involuntarily Custodial investigation: if there’s an inquiry directed at a particular suspect; if it ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime; the investigators have custody over the person of the suspect R.A. 7438 – Covers invitations

Miranda v. Arizona - Miranda was charged with kidnapping, rape and was subjected to lengthy interrogations but was not apprised of his right to have a lawyer

People v. Mojello - Our standards are stricter than Miranda because our law requires the lawyer/counsel to be competent, and independent and the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel Magtoto v. Manguera - Rights under Sec. 12, Art. III took effect only upon the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution and is not retroactive - Presenting extrajudicial confessions gives the burden on the prosecution to prove that the person has been apprised of his rights - Without compliance with these safeguards, no evidence may be used by the police against the accused obtained in violation of these Navallo v. Sandiganbayan - In mere audit investigations, the rights of persons under custodial investigations are not applicable Remolona v. Civil Service Commission - Administrative inquiries are not custodial investigations that require the presence of counsel Tanenggee v. People - These rights do not apply to administrative proceedings in the employer’s level especially if there’s no proof that the employee was coerced - Investigations in employer’s level are not custodial investigations - A “written statement” made in the course of an administrative investigation, and “given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently,” would be admissible in evidence People v. Endino - Admission before members of the media are not covered by the rights of persons under custodial investigation and is deemed to be voluntary in nature - But the SC reminded RTCs to exercise extreme caution in admitting similar confessions especially if there’s a possibility of police

-

investigators conniving with unscrupulous media practitioners to elicit such confessions Admissions must be admitted on a case-to-case basis

Ladiana v. People - A preliminary investigation before a prosecutor’s office is not a custodial investigation - So, preparing a counter-affidavit without the assistance of counsel is not violative of a respondent’s rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 People v. Andan - Confession before a Mayor. Should there be a counsel? - Yes because a municipal mayor has jurisdiction over the police which may arguably be deemed as a law enforcement officer - But in this case, the SC considered as admissible the uncounseled confessions made by the accused to the mayor, whom the accused treated as his confidante and who did not even question him, and voluntary statements made to news reporters during televised interviews, but not his confessions made during his custodial investigation leading to the subsequent discovery and seizure from his house of the evidence eventually used against him (Cruz, 2015) Ø What if a suspect voluntarily submits himself and admits the crime? The rule on custodial investigations do not apply because the rationale was to prevent coerced confessions or admissions Ø (1) (2) (3) (4)

An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must be: Voluntary; With the assistance of counsel; In writing; and Express (Cruz, 2015)

People v. Tawat - Admissions before persons who are not law enforcement officers are admissible in court against the person Are the rights under Art. III, Sec. 12 applicable in a police lineup?

-

Qualify. If no question is asked, then no (General Rule). But if there is a move on the part of police officers to elicit confessions or information, then the rights in Art. III, Sec. 12 already apply. General rule: Police lineups are not part of custodial investigations (People v. Lamsing). The process has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory

People v. Hassan - It was made to appear that the accused was being subjected to a police lineup but he was merely alone and was presented to the witness alone - SC said it was already a confrontation. It was pointedly suggestive, generated confidence where there was none, activated visual imagination, and subverted reliability as eye-witness o Accusatory questions asked in transit is already covered by the rules on custodial investigation (People v. Compil) Independent and Competent Counsel Preferably of his own choice People v. Mujello - “Preferably of his own choice” is not exclusive as to preclude any other competent attorneys to attend to or handle the case/custodial investigation o What is important is the accused is apprised of his right to remain silent and his right to independent and competent counsel. -

As long as the counsel is vigilant, he is already deemed competent

People v. Sayaboc - Burden of the lawyer is to show that he was able to satisfy himself during the conduct of the custodial investigation that the suspect understands his rights and the questions propounded - The lawyer must satisfy himself that the accused understands not just the import but the consequences of answering the questions propounded - The lawyer must be vigilant. He must be able to make the accused realize the consequences of the words he is about to utter

People v. Velarde - Whether the person to whom the accused is confessing has an interest adverse to the accused (i.e. prosecutor) is the test on whether the lawyer is independent - Thus, an accused confessing to a prosecutor fails to satisfy this requirement because a prosecutor has an adverse interest in the outcome of the case and thus, not independent - In People v. Cachuela, the SC held that the assistance of a lawyer provided by the same agency investigating the accused was not the kind of assistance required of lawyers in a custodial investigation People v. Ramos - The law enforcer must have the patience to explain the rights to the accused People v. Broqueza - Even vague answers are not enough. There must be a showing that the accused knew and understood the significance of his rights No presumption of regularity in Custodial Investigations RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14 (1), and (2), 1987 Const.)

Art. III, Sec. 1 Art. III, Sec. 14 applies to due process in general - limited to criminal cases and covers both substantive and and covers only procedural procedural matters matters. -

Denial of this right constitutes a violation of criminal due process The procedure differs in cases before the Office of the Ombudsman because the latter has the power to dismiss outright a case for being utterly devoid of merit Criminal due process: basic ingredient of trial in accordance with the rudiments of fair play Mistrial: when the proceedings were held under such circumstances when the accused could not freely present his defense or the judge could not freely make his decision - An exception to the rule on double jeopardy

Tañada v. Tuvera - Conviction under a law that was not published is a violation of criminal due process David v. Marquez - A private complainant may appeal the judgement of acquittal and has right to file special civil action for certiorari if the ground was grave abuse of discretion on lack of due process - G.R.: Petition for Certiorari may be filed in behalf of the State - XPN: If the ground was grave abuse of discretion grounded on lack of due process Presumption of Innocence - What overthrows the presumption is not the weakness of the defense but the strength of the prosecution’s evidence - What if the probative value of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense the same? The court must side in favor of the accused. This is the equipoise rule. 5

Rule 133, Rules of Court

Equipoise rule: where the evidence in criminal cases is equally balanced, the courts must tilt the scales in favor of the accused pursuant to the constitutional right to presumption of innocence

People v. Maraorao - Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgement. Where there is reasonable doubt, accused must be acquitted. Proof beyond reasonable doubt: Not absolute certainty. Moral certainty suffices. Degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.5 o Determination of accused’s guilt is a question of fact. Makayan, Jr. v. People - G.R.: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts - Exceptions: 1. When the findings are grounded on surmises, conjectures; 2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; 3. When there is grave abuse of discretion; 4. When the judgement is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5. When the findings of fact are conflicting; 6. When the CA went beyond the issues of the case and is contrary to the admissions of the appellant and appellee; 7. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; 8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by respondents; and 10. When the findings of fact by the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. Should the evidence pointing to the accused’s conviction be always direct? - No. Circumstantial evidence may suffice, provided the following requisites concur:

1. More than 1 circumstance to convict; 2. Facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and 3. Combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt6 People v. Claro - Requirement re: proof beyond reasonable doubt even predates our constitution - This is culled from American jurisprudence Motive People v. Comesario - Mere motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction most especially if there is no other reliable evidence by which it could be deduced that the accused was the malefactor People v. Galvez - Mere motive is immaterial as it is not an element of the crime - In our jurisdiction, only the elements of the crime are considered in determining whether an accused is guilty of a crime Exception: - When the evidence/proof as to the commission of the rime is circumstantial or inconclusive Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against the accused Two ways: 1. Information filed in court; 2. Arraignment and plea - Without arraignment, the first jeopardy does not attach People v. Manansala - Accused was properly apprised

6

Id.

-

He was convicted of possession though he was charged with sale. The SC said the possession is necessarily included in the sale of drugs therefore, no violation of the right to be informed An accused may be convicted of a crime which is necessarily included in another crime even though the crime charged is different

Canceran v. People - Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals: there is no crime of frustrated theft - Charge was frustrated theft. The SC said it can never be read as consummated theft. Canceran may only be convicted of the crime of attempted theft - Rule is accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the information. But courts may convict based on a lesser offense or offenses necessarily included in the offense charged - What was proved in this case was consummated theft despite the charge indicating it was only frustrated theft which was a non-existent crime. Thus, the crime must be attempted theft. Otherwise, there is a violation of the right to be informed of the nature of the cause and allegation against him - In dubio pro reo: also a Constitutional precept Cesa v. Office of the Ombudsman - Respondent actively participated in the proceedings before the Ombudsman despite the fact that the charges against him kept on changing therefore, no violation of due process, and no violation of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against him Matrido v. People - Citing US v. Carelsen, the SC ruled that the objectives/purposes of this constitutional right are: 1. Furnish the accused information that properly describes the allegations against him so as to enable him to make his defense; 2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and

3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conclusion o Right to be informed may not be waived. The accused may only refuse to enter a plea. In other words, the right to an arraignment may not be waived What would prevail? The technical name or the allegations in the body? - It is the allegations of facts that prevails. - The contents of the information must contain the qualifying, aggravating circumstances, if any. It need not be in legalese or in the language of the law

People v. Dy - Accused refuses to be arraigned because he still wanted to appeal the ruling of the prosecutor before the Secretary of Justice. But this is not one of the grounds to suspend arraignment under the Rules of Court o What may be waived is the right to enter a plea and enter a plea of not guilty but the arraignment is not waivable Political Offense Doctrine: Common crimes perpetrated in furtherance of political offenses cannot be punished separately from the criminal offense and are absorbed in the political offense and assume the political complexion of the political offense

o If the information is insufficient (i.e. does not allege an offense), the remedy is to file a motion to quash. But before that can be done, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion to quash may only be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment or even if amended, still suffers from the same defects

Ocampo v. Abando - Rebellion. Homicide, murder perpetrated in furtherance of rebellion, the killings assume the political complexion of rebellion - What is the remedy if there are separate charges? - Amendment or substitution of the information - It would not place the accused in double jeopardy

o What if the allegations are vague? The remedy is to file a Motion for Bill of Particulars (Enrile v. People)

Right to be heard by himself and counsel - When it comes to criminal proceedings, there must always be a counsel. Because even lawyers get confused by the technical rules of procedure. How much more a lay person

Enrile v. People - Only ultimate facts need to be alleged in the information. The ultimate facts are the ones which have to be proven in trial - As opposed to evidentiary facts, the latter pertains to those used to prove the ultimate facts People v. Quitlong - Conspiracy must also be alleged in the information - But in alleging conspiracy, there is no need to aver all details of conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same degree of particularity required in proving substantive offenses - Sufficient allegation of conspiracy: ordinary and concise language. Just enough to be able to apprise the accused that he is charged in conspiracy with the other accused

People v. Liwanag - Does not mean intelligent counsel. It only means an effective and vigilant counsel - Just to prevent force and fraud to the accused Hilario v. People - Certiorari filed by accused only, without the counsel signing the petition - SC: there was violation of the right to counsel under the Constitution - If this is the case, there would be a denial of criminal due process as the accused was not properly assisted by counsel

Ibañez v. People - Even if an accused is merely represented by a counsel de officio, the same satisfies the constitutional requirement - It is not the right to confrontation that is guaranteed but the right to have the opportunity to cross-examine which may be waived7 Is there a right to counsel in a contempt charge? Flores v. Ruiz - Yes. It is akin to a criminal proceeding despite not being a criminal charge What if the lawyer makes a mistake? Is this a violation of the right to counsel? - Mistakes by the lawyer binds the client. Negligence by the lawyer also binds the client. - What is violative of the right to counsel is gross negligence or incompetence. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer Andrada v. People - SC cited examples: 1. Client abandoned by the lawyer; 2. Failure to file appellant’s brief on time due to sheer irresponsibility of counsel - Such circumstances must be taken on a case-to-case basis Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial When is this violated? - Attended by vexatious, capricious delays - This is a ground for dismissal on the merits - Constitutes double jeopardy - Is the period of time of delay the only factor? No, the following are the factors: (LRAP) 1. Length of delay; 2. Reason for the delay; 3. Assertion or non-assertion of his right; and 7

In relation to right to confrontation

4. Prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. Remulla v. Sandiganbayan - The burden of expediting the prosecution rests on the prosecution itself. There is no duty on the part of the accused to make a follow-up of the case - The delay must be justified by the prosecution - The determination as to the violation of this right is taken on an ad hoc or case-to-case basis Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of Plunder Cases of Joseph Estrada - SC did not allow Estrada’s objection to the broadcast because of the significance and the historical value of the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan - No violation of right to privacy (Ayer v. Capulong) Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face - The right is the opportunity to cross-examine, not the actual confrontation - May be waived by accused or by counsel - “The best cross is no cross” - Two-fold purpose: 1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination; 2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses (Cruz, 2015) People v. Rivera - Remedy if the witness was not properly cross-examined: - Rule 132, Sec. 9, Rules of Court: recalling of witness People v. Seneris - Witness failed to be cross-examined - Remedy is to strike his testimonies off the records

-

The trial court must assess as to what extent the direct testimony has been examined

o Exceptions to the right of cross-examination 1. Dying declarations – made under consciousness of impending death; 2. Trial in absentia Right to compulsory process - To secure the attendance of witnesses and produce evidence in their behalf - Subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum - The judge must take steps to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence - Must be invoked during trial otherwise, it is deemed waived Motion for Production of Subpoena Documents Against the adverse party in the Against a third person case Trial in Absentia Requisites: (ANU) 1. Accused has already been arraigned; 2. Accused has been duly notified of trial; and 3. Failure to appear is unjustified What if the accused is tried without arraignment? - The adjudgment may be set aside for violating criminal due process

May resource persons in a legislative inquiry refuse to take the witness stand or participate in a legislative inquiry? - No. They may, however, refuse to answer a question which tend to incriminate them when the question is asked but not to refuse attendance (Standard Chartered Bank case) May witnesses refuse to take the witness stand? - In civil cases, no. but in criminal cases, they may refuse to take the witness stand Incriminatory questions: if it tends to subject the witness to criminal liability only - Applies only to testimonial9 compulsion only - If the accused is required to produce a hair sample, for instance, the right does not apply Boyd v. United States - Defendant was required to produce private books, invoice, and papers alleging violation of customs laws. - The US Supreme Court said that this was a violation of the right against self-incrimination Scope of Right Against Self-Incrimination: Natural persons only - Juridical persons are subject to visitorial powers pursuant to the valid exercise of police power o Accused may refuse to take the witness stand altogether but a witness may not but he may refuse to answer questions at the time the question is propounded.

NOTE: Right to Travel - Grant of bail is a valid limitation on the right to travel Right against self-incrimination - No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself - Applies to legislative proceedings/inquiries8 as well The rights of the resource persons must still be respected and upheld in legislative inquiries (Art. VI, Sec. 26) 8

There must be an application of intelligence, attention, and is communicative (i.e. signatures, reenactment of a crime) 9

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted (Cruz, 2015) - Bars the prosecution from pursuing further appeal except: - Mistrial - Grave abuse of discretion - Does not apply to administrative proceedings. However, contempt proceedings which partake the nature of criminal proceedings are covered Requisites of Double Jeopardy: 1. Valid Complaint; - In private crimes, certain persons must initiate the prosecution of the crimes and cannot be prosecuted de officio (i.e. adultery, concubinage, seduction, etc.) 2. Filed before a court of competent jurisdiciton10; - A, who was on the boundary of Makati killed B, who was on the boundary of Taguig. Where should the criminal complaint be filed? 3. Valid plea; - If the accused pleads guilty but raises mitigating circumstances later, there is no standing plea (People v. Balisacan) 4. Case was dismissed or terminated without the accused’s express consent. - Excludes mere silence on the part of the accused - Exceptions to the rule that dismissal must be without the accused’s express consent: 1. Accused files demurrer to evidence; 2. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial Crimes covered: original offense, attempted and frustrated stages, crimes which necessarily include or is necessarily included

Jurisdiction over the subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction, Sec. 10, Rule 110, Rules of Court 10

Doctrine of Supervening Event11 - When, after filing of a complaint, a graver offense developed (common in physical injuries cases) - Sec. 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court: Conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint/information under any of the following instances: 1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge; 2. Facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former complaint or information; 3. Plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party Inseparable Offenses - Cannot be subject of separate prosecutions - Reckless imprudence is a single offense and is not a means to commit a crime (Ivler v. San Diego) o Conviction/acquittal under ordinances shall bar further prosecutions for crimes relative to the same subject matter (e.g. jueteng) PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS - Cruel, degrading, inhuman punishment: not just excessive, the punishment must be flagrantly and plainly offensive – disproportionate to the nature of the offense regardless if it just entails imprisonment - R.A. 9346: Suspends the efficacy of death penalty which does not bar the possible reenactment of the death penalty - Art. 7 of the RPC on death penalty: 1. When the guilty person is already 70 years of age; 2. When on appeal, all members of the SC are not unanimous;

11

Rule 117, Sec. 7, Rules of Court

People v. Mercado - Death by lethal injection is not cruel or unusual - Under the ICCP, the right to life is recognized but capital punishment is also recognized as a valid limitation to the right to life provided it be or the most serious crime - State parties in the ICCP are not obliged to prohibit death penalty, but merely limit its use Republic v. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc. - The fine was not excessive as it was for the protection of our waters NO IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT OR POLL TAX Lozano v. Martinez - Is BP 22 punishing the act of incurring the debt? - It punishes the act of issuing a worthless check Poll tax: Cedula tax on the basis of his class INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE - Every enforced or compulsory service of one to another no matter under what for such servitude may be disguised - Exceptions: 1. When a crime is involved (convict was required to render services to the community); 2. Return to Work Order (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Kahoy sa Pilipinas) EX POST FACTO LAW/BILL OF ATTAINDER - Law that criminalizes an act which when done was not criminal - Must be applied retroactively - Kinds: (MACARD) 1. Makes criminal an act which when done was not criminal; 2. Aggravates a crime and makes it different from when it was committed; 3. Changes punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;

4. Alters legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender; 5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; 6. Deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction, or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty. Lacson v. Executive Secretary - R.A. 8249 - Law involved here is merely a substantive law on jurisdiction, not a penal law - What constitutes an ex post facto law is a penal law Bill of Attainder - Imposes a penalty without judicial trial People v. Ferrer - Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder as members of the CPP would only be convicted after the trial