Bill of Rights

The study of Bill of Rights is just like the study of the Constitution. How BoR
fixed into our jurisprudence and our laws. Its a mechanism by which the rights of
the people are protected. It is very much like Constitution. The constitution is
invented because of the enormous powers of government and we have discussed
time and again the principle powers of the government which is Police Power,
Power of Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation.
In the same vein that the BoR is very much like our Constitution. In our
Constitution it is taken on a holistic point of view such that the Constitution
enumerates, creates the fundamental structure of government. In the
BoR, it is likewise a protection of the citizen from the state, very much like
the Constitution because of the enormity of the powers of the Government.
Why are there so many rights of an accused? It is shown in the BoR Sec. 12,
Sec. 14 and Sec. 17 but it is not shown in the Constitution an enumeration of the
rights of the victim? All that is shown are the rights of an accused. The protection is
given to the accused but none for the victim. That is why in Criminal Cases we say
that the victims are the people themselves; they are the one that was hurt by the
commission of the crime. That is why it is People of the Philippines vs The
Accused.
Comes with that is the entire machinery of the government, the police, the
fiscal, the justice system, the prosecutors and anything the president can pour in to
prosecute. That is why; we also have to protect the rights of the accused. So
therefore, the rights enumerated in the BoR are the balancing act. In balancing the
enormous powers of the government and the rights of the govern, very much like
the constitution. That is why the BoR is invented.
In simple terms, what is Bill of Rights? It is a list, an enumeration of
rights, a list of the most important rights of citizens. The purpose is to
protect these rights from infringement therefore these rights exist. Very
much like the right against unreasonable search and seizure. It is a natural right
according to former Chief Justice Puno, even if no there is no BoR, this right must be
protected because it is a natural right. That is the case of Republic of the
Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan Gr. No. 104768, July 21, 2003. This involves a
case arising from search and seizure during the interregnum after the EDSA
Revolution and before the proclamation of the freedom Constitution on February 26,
1986 to March 24, 1986. It is when the Freedom Constitution was promulgated and
adapted by former President Cory Aquino.
During this time, a search and seizure was conducted, in the house of Miss
Elizabeth Dimaano. It was a time when everything was uncontrolled. In the house of
Dimaano, there were contrabands. There were properties seized by the authorities.
In the trial, Dimaano questioned the search, saying that it was an unlawful search

because the manner of the issuance of the search warrant was not in accordance
with law. Secondly, Dimaano wants to exclude evidences (under the exclusionary
rules of the BoR) that were taken from her house as evidence against her. We will
learn in Sec. 2 that the properties seized during a violation against unreasonable
search may be excluded and cannot be used as evidence because it is unlawfully
obtained. There is an exclusionary rule. So these are the 2 issues Dimaano raised
before the Courts and when it reached the SC, the SC decided that during that time
there was no BoR to speak of and there was no constitution. When the revolution
broke, the country was governed by a revolutionary government and Former Pres.
Aquino abrogated the 1973 Constitution, she did not recognize the 1973
Constitution. So therefore from the time of the Revolution the 1973 Constitution
was no longer in effect, meaning at the time of the search there was no Constitution
to speak of and no BoR specifically the rights against unlawful and unreasonable
search and seizure and the concomitant right of exclusion. However in the main
case the majority decision is even if there was no BoR to speak of, it cannot be
excluded never the less the SC did not allow the properties seized to be used as
evidence. In fact the SC said that it must be returned because it is not considered as
contraband.
CJ Puno took issue with the majority opinion because the majority opinion
said that there was no BOR at the time of the reach therefor Dimaano cannot use
the BoR as a defense. Dimaano cant claim a right against unreasonable search and
seizure and also she doesnt have the right to ask for the exclusion of the evidence
obtained during the allegedly illegal search. The concurring opinion of CJ Puno is
novel; he said it is true that there was no Constitution during that time meaning
there is no BoR, he disagreed with the majority opinion in saying that there is no
right against unreasonable search and seizure and that there is no right to exclusion
in other words CJ Puno contrary to the issue said that even if there was no BoR to
speak of during the search there is still a natural right because the right against
unreasonable search and seizure and the right of exclusion of what is unlawfully
taken is a right that is keen and goes with the right to Life, Liberty and Property and
theses right is always there for as long you are a human being, it is a human right
therefore a natural right.
In this case, CJ Puno merely touched on the right against unreasonable search
and seizure; we can assume that there are also other rights of a Filipino citizen even
though there is no BoR it attaches to the citizen merely because he is a citizen. It
could be part of a right to Life, Liberty and Property because it is a natural right.
The first coded of BoR is that of England on 1689, although England already
has its Magna Carta as early as 1215. The US had its BoR on 1776.
Section 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

What section 1 is saying that there is already a right to Life, Liberty and
Property, it protects these rights. Section 1 is telling us the laws protect everybody
equally. There is a protection from the law even if there is no BoR. The BoR contains
mandates against the state; everything that you find on the BoR is mandated
against the state. Why? Because BoR is invented to protect a citizen against the
state.
The BoR applies only to aFilipino citizen, true or false? There is only one
Section in the BoR that is applicable only to Filipino citizen all others are
applicable to citizens and foreigners. It is Section 7 which is dedicated
only to Filipino citizens.
Again we are reminded on what was previously stated in the Constitution that
the idea of the Government is brought about two social values. Power and Freedom,
therefore governance is the delicate art of balancing the Power of the Government
and the Freedom of the Govern.
The BoR is a restriction of the great power of the Government, a protection
against abuse of power; it is always directed against the State. Governance is a
delicate art of balancing the Power of the Government and the Freedom of the
Govern.
The totality of government power is contained in three great powers; Police
Power, Power of Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation. A constitution does not
need to grant such powers because they are inherent powers without which a
government cant exist.
Police Power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and the
least limitable of powers, against Power of Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation
extending as it does to all the great public needs. In Ermita Malate Hotel and
Motel Operators Associations Inc. vs. Mayor of Manila GR. No. L-24693,
July 31, 1967. Police Power is defined in the following manner; it is the inherent
and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is
hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society. It is always referred
to the General Welfare Clause. Police Power rest upon public necessity and upon the
right of the State and of the public to Self-Protection, Police Power is exercised by
the national government through the legislative department it may also be
delegated within limits to local governments.
This has been demonstrated in the case of Fernando as Mayor of Marikina
vs. St. Scholastica GR. No. 1611707, March 12, 2013. It discusses the
delegation of Police power to LGU through the Local Government Code. It is said
that Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make
statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education,
good order or safety and general welfare of the people. The State, through
the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local government

units, as agencies of the State. This delegation of police power is embodied in

Section 1622 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160),
known as the General Welfare Clause, which has two branches. The first,
known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal council to enact
ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to
carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal
council by law. The second, known as the police power proper, authorizes the
municipality to enact ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the health and
safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the
municipality and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property.
Police power has been used to justify public safety measure such as
building regulations, the regulations of carrying of deadly weapons, the requirement
of rotational participation in patrol duty, regulations of gasoline stations and movie
theaters and the use of city roads. The Police Power has been used to justify
public health as to a compulsory collection to a city sewerage system, the
licensing of practice of medicine, the regulation of the cattle imports and the sale of
meat. While in the field of public moral, police power has been used as the basis
for judicial approval of legislation punishing vagrancy and classifying a pimp as a
vagrant regulation the operation, prohibiting gambling, dance halls, motels and
hotels.
But where a municipality refused to give any permit for night clubs and any
license for professional dancers, the Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional;
as going beyond mere regulation into prohibition of a profession or calling in which,
if properly regulated can be legitimate. Dela Cruz vs. Judge Paras cited by Bernas
(pages 101-103).
While gambling may be prohibited, when it is allowed, the court will not pass
judgment on the choice of the Congress. We now come to remember MAYOR
PABLO P. MAGTAJAS & THE CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO vs. PRYCE
PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC. & PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING
CORPORATION; this is a conflict between a statute that was enacted by Congress
allowing PAGCOR to operate a Casino in CDO which is against on the ordinance of
CDO that prohibits gambling. The SC said that a national legislation must prevail.
Police Power has been used to justify measures for general welfare;
enactments have been upheld regulating the slaughter of carabaos, regulating
nuisances, laying down rules for the deportation of aliens, anti-graft laws in other
words by this enumeration it shows that Police Power has everything to do
with Public Order with putting into order everything for the welfare of the public.
Police Power has always been justified for the welfare of the citizens.
What are the rights protected under the Rights to due process
clause of the Constitution? Section 1 of the BoR states his rights that are
protected under the due process clause. In Section 1, we will find the Due Process

Clause and The Equal Protection Clause. The second part of section 1 is the
equal protection clause.
Is the exercise of Police Power is subject to judicial inquiry? In so far as it
affects life, liberty and property is concerned, it is always subjected to
judicial inquiry.
What is the principle yardstick against which the exercise of police power
may be measured so that it wont be abused? Police power must be exercised within
the limits set by the constitution. In the words in the case of US vs Toribio, the
determination of what is a proper exercise of Police Power is not final conclusive, but
is subject to the supervisions of courts. The principal yardstick against which is such
exercise must be measured are the Due Process Clause and The Equal
Protection Clause.
Section 1 states the principal power of the state, Police Power, Power of
Eminent Domain and Power of Taxation. Principally police power; always
consider Police power is a tool of the state to protect its citizen s for their general
welfare but it must be regulated. The reach of the due process and equal protection
clause touches all persons, the citizens and the aliens, natural or corporate with the
exemption of Section 7.
What is the extent of to the right to life that is protected in the Constitution?
The constitutional protection on to right to life is not about the right to be
alive or ones security against physical harm. The right to life includes also
the right to a good life.

Does the right to liberty is protected by the due process clause simply means
freedom from bodily restraints? The core of protected liberty means not
merely a freedom from bodily restraints but also the right of the individual
to contract, to engage in any common occupations of life, to acquire
useful knowledge, to marry, establishes a home and bring up children and
to worship God according to the dictates of ones conscience.
What is the extent to the right to the property that is protected by the
Constitution? This includes all kinds of property found in the BoR. It has been
deemed to include vested tights such as perfected mining claim, or a
perfected homestead, or a final judgment.
Is there a Hierarchy of Rights protected by the Constitution? Yes. There is
hierarchy of rights. Meaning there is hierarchy between life, liberty and
property. The 1971 Constitutional Convention clearly recognized that the
social character of private property, definitely placed proper in a position
inferior to life or liberty.

In Arroyo vs. De Lima, the SC granted the Temporary Restraining Order in

favor of Arroyo adverted to the right to life as the most adverted important right
protected by the Constitution. Arroyo was supposed to get out of the country to
have her treatment and De Lima did not approve because of a hold order but SC
denied De Lima and issued a TRO to De Lima and let Arroyo fly out of the country,
SC used the right of Life for Arroyos basis to go out of the country but De Lima filed
a case against her. Arroyo now is not allowed to leave the country because of the
case filed against her.
In PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION vs.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973 (50 SCRA 189), characterized the
importance of the right to life against the right to property. By means of how easily
difficult the right to life or the right to property may be tackled by the state. The
primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized, The
superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the
fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means
employed by the law and its object or purpose that the law is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a
law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a
constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more
stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of
a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
What are the 2 aspects of due process? Procedural and Substantive.
What is Substantive due process? As a substantive requirement, it is a
prohibition or arbitrary laws, because when all that the due process laws
required were proper procedure then life, liberty and property can be
destroyed, arbitrarily proper forms are observed.
As a procedural requirement, it relays chiefly to the mold of which
the government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application
of laws. Its essence is a guarantee of procedural fairness which was
expressed by Daniel Webster, as a law which hears before it condemns. In
the early history of American Due Process, due process was understood to
relay procedures which govt. agencies must follow.
Why are there different requirements of procedural due process? Because
there are requirements of procedural due process in judicial proceedings, in
administrative proceedings, in student discipline cases at least on these 3
instances. Why? Because due process of law depends on circumstances. The
requirement varies to the subject matter and the necessities of the situation surely
an administrative case have a different situation to a judicial case.
The requirement of due process on judicial proceedings as to Banco
Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, presents the essentials of procedural fairness in

judicial proceedings. (1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with

judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction
must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the
property which is the subject of the proceedings; (3) The defendant must
be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) Judgment must be rendered
upon lawful hearing.
The requirement of due process on administrative proceedings as to Ang
Tibay (manufacturer of shoes) vs. Court of Industrial Relations, are (1) The
right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and
submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented; (3) The decision must have something to support
itself; (4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means
such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to
support a conclusion; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected; (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The
Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in
such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
The requirement of due process on student discipline proceedings, on
Guzman vs National Unversity, There are withal minimum standards which must
be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1)
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them; (2) they shag have the right to answer the
charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they
shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the
right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be
duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case. When a student fails to
commit a breach of discipline or frails to maintain the required academic standards
of the school, the student forfeits its rights and courts are not in liberty to reverse
the discretion of university authorities in this matter.
On ARLEO E. MAGTIBAY vs. Lt. Col. SANTIAGO GARCIA, Magtibay was a
graduating student of UP ROTC advance course. Garcia instructed the unit of
Magtibay to march on a malubak part of UP which Magtibay contradicted and
Garcia gave him a failing grade. Magtibay did not graduate and unfortunately did
not enter the UP Vanguard as well. To enter such fraternity one should be a
graduate of a basic 4 degree course have to get consent from the leader then who
was Garcia, and only gave it after more than 20 years after 1960s.

What is the most important requirement of procedural due process? What is

called the heart of due process as to judicial, administrative and student discipline
proceedings? The most important requirement would be the need of notice
and the opportunity to be heard. Provided there is notice to be noticed
and the opportunity to be heard you have already complied with the
substantial requirement of due process.
The due process clause must be understood to guarantee not just forms of
the procedures but also the very essence of life, liberty and property. It must be
interpreted both as a procedural and substantive guarantee. Due process is against
the exercise of arbitrary power even if the power is exercised according to proper
procedure so even if the matter is exercised according to procedure but it has
arbitrary exercise then it is a violation of due process. To comply with due process,
substantive and procedural due process must be complied.
The requirement of substantive due process is not a vivid consent; the heart
of substantive due process is the requirement of reasonableness or absence of
exercise of arbitrary power. US vs. Toribio, there was a statute in 1910 prohibiting
the slaughter of the carabaos because they are considered as the twin of a farmer
and out farmers can use them in the fields. This was challenged as unlawful
deprivation of property and the SC sustained the statute. The state may interfere
whenever the public interest demands it.
Additionally during Marcos tine, he issued an EO 626 amending the slaughter
of carabaos. On the amendment it is illegal to transfer a carabeef from one province
to another and if transported shall be confiscated. It reached the SC and said that
the amendment is not valid because it is tantamount to outright confiscation
without due process of law.
Rubi vs Provincial Board, it is a 1919 case which states a law that created
reservations for Mangyans in Mindoro. The SC held that the law was justifies, the
creations for reservations by the demands of the general welfare and public
interest. If you are at par on the Human Rights concerns this is already prohibited
which is ham letting.
Read the ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, rounded up all
the prostitutes in Manila and sent them to Davao City. The prostitutes questioned it
because there was no basis of the Mayor and COP to round all the prosti and sent
them to Davao. SC said that it was not right.
People vs. Fajardo, a building permit were denied because the City
Government said that it is the building will obstruct the view of the office. The SC
said the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive.
All of these are a violation of substantive due process, the subject
matter of the laws were arbitrary and oppressive laws and therefor
declared unconstitutional.

What is the principle of presumed constitutionality or validity of a statute?

Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Associations Inc vs Mayor of
Manila. It involves a city ordinance designed to curb a rampant use of hotels and
motels as places of illicit assignation there being no factual foundation presented to
remark the presumption of constitutionality of the ordinance. The presumption of
validity was allowed, the ordinance was declared valid. This means that an
ordinance, if there is no essence to rebut its constitutionality, it is presumed to have
been issued lawfully in accordance with the correct procedure. It is substantive; it is
not oppressive, if there is no evidence to show that it is oppressive. So in this case,
since there was no evidence presented to rebut top prove that this hotel was used
for illicit assignations, there was no evidence to rebut its unconstitutionality then it
is constitutional.
Rules on the publication of clarity of laws as a requirement of due process,
the issue in Tanada vs Tuvera is the meaning to be given to the Article 2 Civil
Code says that Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. The SC said that to
phrase unless otherwise provided refers to the number of days not to the need of
publication.
True or false, the rule requirement the publication shall also be applicable
only to laws that are passed by the Congress. False, the rule on publication is a
requirement likewise of admin laws and other laws.
What is the rule on vagueness? A law that is utterly vague is void and
defective because it fails to give notice of what it commands. People vs
Nazario likewise on Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, decided in 2001, cited by
Bernas. In People vs. De La Piedra, also about void for vagueness rule.
The equal protection clause, guarantees the equality of all persons before
the law. This is the second part of Section 1. How may this equality to all persons be
demonstrated? The equal protection clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of
equality of a person. The equality it guarantees is legal equality or the equality of
all persons before the law. It cannot be absolute equality because man and woman
can never be equal. (mas magaling ang woman). The equality guaranteed however
not a disembodied equality is. It does not deny to the state the power to recognize
and act upon actual differences between individuals and classes. It recognizes that
inherent in the right to legislate is the right to classify. The problem thus in equal
protection cases is one determining the validity of the classification made by law,
provided if the statute gives a valid classification then it is a valid statute.
What is meant by the guarantee of equal protection? This means that no
person or class of persons shall be deprived from the same protection of
the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes of the same
place and in light circumstances.
For the classification to be reasonable; (1) must rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not

be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all
members of the same class.
Under the fair elections act, it provides that elective officials are not deemed
resigned upon the filing of COC this is not the case of appointive officials. Is this not
a violation of equal protection clause? It is not, as held in the case of Farinas vs
Executive Secretary, because the elective officials are a class of their own, and
the appointive officials is another class. This law cannot be applied equally to both
classes.
Tiu vs CA, RA 7227, this is the law in Subic; it was challenged as a violation
of the equal protection clause because it granted tax and duty incentives to
businesses within the secured area of the Subic Economic Zone Area but this grants
incentives is not given to business outside of the fences. The SC justified it by
saying that business within Subic Economic Zone Area has a different classification
between the businesses outside the area.
In International School Alliance of Educators vs Secretary
Quisumbing of Department of Education, the practice of the International
School of giving higher salary for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank was
declared unconstitutional. The Court argued that the principle of equal pay for
equal work required that persons who work with substantially equal qualifications,
skill, effort and responsibility under similar condition should be paid similar salaries.
The classification the school made is unconstitutional.