Anda di halaman 1dari 46


October 30, 2016

Technique on How To Answer Exam Properly:

1. First, if the question is answerable by “yes” or “no” you must give either an affirmative or negative answer. For
example, “No, the law is not valid” or “Yes, the law is valid”.

2. Second, lay down or cite the rule, principle, doctrine or law as your legal basis. For example: “Under the equal
protection clause in order to have a valid classification the following requisites must be present:

 the classification must be based on substantial distinction;

 it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

 must not be limited to existing and present conditions only;

 must apply equally to all members of the same class.”

3. Followed by: “In this case” or “Here” . . . “it violates the equal protection clause (cite the rule, doctrine, principle or
law as basis) because (ang “dahilan or reason” mo ang magli-link ng rule sa application to the set of case: “X,Y, and
Z being singled out by law being having no substantial distinction. It does not apply to all the members of the same
class. It only applies to them.” Take note, do not simply outline the rule only otherwise nagbigay ka lang ng batas.
Dapat may kaugnayan sa kaso. Moreover, do not immediately jump to your discussion without first laying down the
rule, principle, doctrine or law. These are your bases. Kahit tama ang discussion mo, so what? E kung wala ka
namang nilagay na basehan.

Congress passed a law, X, Y and Z claim that it violates the Constitution on grounds not mention in the facts. Mahirap
ito kasi hahanapin mo ang isyu. The issue here is whether the law is constitutional on the ground that it violates the
equal protection clause. The issue is whether X is guilty of murder on the ground that there was evident premeditation.


1. Explain the concept of politics as an exercise of power.

Politics as an exercise of power is the ability to achieve desired results. If you cannot do that you have no power.

What are the different degrees of power?

From the love and affection one evokes to another; with use of threat of pain one inflicts to another; the desired
result sought to be achieved. Authority is another source of power. The more authority you have the lesser need you
have to use the different degrees of power. Ang government maraming meaning pero ang differences ay purely
semantics kung paano lang na-construct ang sentence. It is not substantive.

David vs. Arroyo. Valedictory decision of Carpio-Morales which case is very significant. Binuhos na lahat ang
alam niya to justify kung valid ang exercise of power ng President under Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 ano ba
ang role ng government sa society? You cannot discuss political law if you do not know politics and power.

2. Jenny, a member of a religious sect, Yahweh’s Observer, was severely disappointed with the way the group
conducts the manner of their religious obligation. Jenny filed a suit in court seeking the removal of their servant
leader on the ground that it ruins the reputation of the religion and said conduct violates their dogmas and doctrines.
Will Jenny’s case prosper?

NO. As a rule under Article 2, Section 6 of the Constitution, the separation of church and State shall be inviolable.
Moreover, Article 3, Section 5 prohibits the State from interfering in the free exercise of the people of their chosen
religious beliefs. In fact, the Constitution addressed the State through the legislative department when it commands
not to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion. Here, the case will not prosper because any decision made
by the court shall be a violation of the separation of the church and State. Whether the servant leader ruins the
reputation of their religion and violates their dogmas and doctrines these are purely matters of ecclesiastical and
religious and organizational concerns which the members of the church must resolve among themselves. These are
non-justiciable issues.

3. Enumerate and explain the Three Generations of Rights. In international law which generation of rights that is the
most important.

First: Civil and Political Rights –

Second: Social, Economic and Cultural Rights –

Third: Solidarity Rights –

They are all equally important. The 3 generations are not in the order of importance but stages of recognition.

4. The president wanted to effect the immediate concerns of his people that he promised during the election campaign
especially the installation of a federal government. If he solicits your counsel on what steps to take so the priority
agenda may be achieved. Would you recommend an amendment or revision of the Constitution?

I would recommend revision. As a rule, there is revision if the change will affect basic principles of the Constitution
like a shift of the system of government from a unitary system to a federal state. There is also revision if it will alter
the substantial entirety of the Constitution as it will affect several provisions of the Constitution. Amendment on the
other hand affects specific provisions of the Cconstitution. Here, it’s the system of government which is substantial
that is being sought by the President to change therefore I recommend revision. Lambino vs. Comelec, 2006.

5. There is a proposal by a member of the House of Representatives who was quoted as saying that he favors a change
in the Constitution by way of a constitutional commission similar to the one created by President Cory Aquino in
1986 that proposed the charter change. Will this be the best method to propose the desired constitutional change?

NO. Article 17, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides the methods and processes for the amendment or
revision of the Constitution. It does not state the creation of a constitutional commission similar to the one created
by Cory Aquino who created such Con-Com in the exercise of her revolutionary powers under the freedom
constitution. Such a situation does not exist today.

6. Ambassador Tekla is the diplomatic representative to State Timbuktu of State Hinterlands. During one of his
vacations Ambassador Tekla decided to experience for himself the sights and sounds of State Paradise known for its
beauty and attraction. While in State Paradise he was caught in the company of children under suspicious
circumstances and was arrested for violating the state’s pedophilia statutes. He claims that he cannot be sued by
virtue of his diplomatic immunity. Is the claim meritorious?

NO. He is not entitled to diplomatic immunity for an offense he committed in State Paradise for several reasons:
First, he is not a diplomat in State Paradise. In diplomatic relations the state to which a diplomat is to be assigned is
agreed upon between the states concerned. Here, Ambassador Tekla is the ambassador to State Timbuktu and not to
State Paradise and there was no diplomatic agreement between the state he represents, State Hinterlands, and State
Paradise. Second, diplomatic immunity is available to a diplomat even if he is in transit, that is when travelling
through a third state on the way to or from the receiving state. So far as maybe necessary to ensure his safe transfer
and return. Here, Ambassador Tekla is not in transit to or from the receiving state, State Timbuktu. He went
purposely to State Paradise for a vacation and thus no basis to perform his official diplomatic function. Third, even
assuming he is in transit he is travelling incognito in State Paradise such that said state has no information that he is
travelling thereto as a diplomat.

7. Congress passed Cybercrime Prevention Act which regulates the use and access to cyberspace. Before the law can
be implemented Kalasag, a cause oriented group which monitors acts of abuses in government filed a petition
questioning some of the provisions of the law which threaten the fundamental rights of the people. The Solicitor
General countered that there is no basis for the exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court
because there is no yet violation of the law and therefore there is no actual case or controversy to speak of. Besides
there is no imminent danger of prosecution under the law. Can the Supreme Court proceed to decide the case?

(Take note of the issues here: First, whether Kalasag, a cause oriented group has locus standi or legal standing to file
the petition; and Second, whether there is actual case or controversy.)
YES. As a rule, the court can only acquire jurisdiction over the constitutionality of a law if the petitioner has the
locus standi. Meaning, a proper party who is in imminent danger or who suffered direct injury which he sustained as
a result of the act complained of. However a party’s standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set
aside by the court in view of the transcendental importance of the issues involved. Here, the law regulates freedom
of speech and expression as a basic human right of primordial importance which may be limited only upon the
existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which necessitates the State to act upon forthwith. The
issues raised by the petitioner are of paramout interest even if the law is not yet implemented that a facial challenge
may be raised to question the law’s validity because it would create a chilling effect on free speech and expression.
Imbong vs. Ochoa, 2014.

Take note that chilling effect is used only in free speech issues.

Locus standi pwedeng tanggalin at pwedeng ipalit transcendental importance or paramount or public interest.
Pero hindi pwedeng gawin sa LAHAT ng requirements on judicial review. Sa locus standi lang or actual

8. Through a letter petition addressed to the Supreme Court justices, petitioner Ewan in his capacity as a Filipino
citizen and a taxpayer prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the court to exercise its judicial
independence and fiscal autonomy against the perceived hostility of Congress entitled the filing of proposed bills
removing the Judiciary Development Fund and replacing it with the Judiciary Support Fund. She filed the petition
because she is concerned about the threats against the judiciary and Congress may abuse the discretion with blatant
usurpation of judicial independence in violation of the principle of separation of powers. Congress argues that the
court has no jurisdiction over the case on the ground that the requisites for judicial review are not complied with.
Did the petitioner comply with all the requisites for judicial review so that the court may take cognizance of the

NO. As a rule, in order for the court to take cognizance of a case for judicial review, the following requisites must
be present: First, there must be an actual case or controversy. Second, the person challenging the act must have legal
standing (locus standi). Third, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Fourth, the
issue of constitutionality must be the least MOTA of the case.

To have an actual case or controversy it must involve a conflict of legal rights; an assertion of composite legal
things susceptible for judicial resolution. The controversy must be justiciable, definite and concrete touching on
the legal relationships of the parties. Here, there was none. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review
because it is not yet a law it creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the court. It’s premature.
Further, to determine a person’s legal standing he must have a personal and substantial interest to the case such that
he sustains or will sustain a direct injury if the bill is passed into law. Here, the petitioner failed to show the injury
and he is not even member of the judiciary.

9. The president through the two different departments or agencies under the executive department initiated the
disbursement acceleration program or DAP. Under this program, funds of one department or agency were used to
fund projects of another department or agency. Several infrastructure projects definitely help stimulate the growth of
the economy. Maricar, a taxpayer and leader of the opposition party, filed a petition questioning the constitutionality
of DAP. She also filed a motion for the reversal of all actions under the numerous projects funded under DAP
contending that an unconstitutional act confers no right and is therefore inoperative. The Supreme Court later
declared as unconstitutional the cross border transfer of funds and the augmentation of appropriation fund items
from funds which are not savings under the DAP. How will you rule on Maricar’s motion?

(Take note: Maricar filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the DAP. Then she filed a motion for the
reversal of all actions. Her petition has been ruled as unconstitutional. The issue is left to be resolved is her motion.)

I will deny Maricar’s motion. As a rule, an unconstitutional law confers no right. However nullification of its effects
will result in inequity and injustice the operative doctrine may apply the effects of the unconstitutional act will have
to be recognized. Here, if the executive is ordered to reverse all actions under the numerous projects under the DAP
it will pave the way to the nullification of the enormous number of infrastructure projects, social and economic
services already accomplished it cannot undo what had already been done especially the benefits that have already
been received by beneficiaries.

10. Joe Lee was born in Hong Kong to a Chinese father and a British mother. He migrated to the Philippines and was
already a permanent resident of the Philippine Islands when Jose Rizal was martyred at Bagumbayan. He continued
to reside in this country until his death. During his lifetime he studied philosophy at the University of Santo Tomas
and married Angelina, a Filipina. Angelina and Joe Lee had a son who was born on the day the Philippine
Independence was declared (July 04, 1946) in Kawit, Cavite. They named their son Emilio after the President of the
First Philippine Republic, Emilio Aguinaldo. During the commonwealth period Emilio married Josephine, also a
Filipina and their child Toto was born on the day the US granted Philippine independence. Toto graduated with a
political science degree from the University of the Philippines. He joined the underground movement opposing
martial law and during the People Power Revolution he was one of the staunch activists in the civil society. Toto
became interested in politics and he now wants to run for senator in the next elections. If Toto asks your opinion
whether or not he has the citizenship qualification as a senator of the Philippines, what advice would you give him?

Under the 1987 Constitution the citizens of the Philippines are those who are already citizens of the Philippines at
the time of its adoption. Those elected

Lolo niya si Joe Lee, hindi Pilipino ang mga parents niya, hindi rin siya dito pinanganak pero dito siya nanirahan.
Hanggang sa mamatay ang lolo niya. Noong binaril si Rizal December 30, 1896 permanent resident na siya ng
Pilipinas. Ayon sa Philippine Bill of 1902 the Malolos Constitution pag ang lalaki kahit tatambay-tambay dito as of
April 11, 1899 (patay na si Rizal) Pilipino siya kahit wala siyang gawin, sa ayaw o gusto niya dahil mass
naturalization kasi yun. (Maliban na lang na dapat nag-stay siya ng within 18 months from ??? 1911 at kung
citizen siya ng Spain hindi niya ime-maintain ang kanyang allegiance sa Spain. In-apply din ito sa Chinese na
nandito nang matagal at hindi siya Spanish.) Basta siya Pilipino ang lolo niya. Dahil Pilipino ang lolo niya tatay niya
Pilipino rin. Dahil dito e di Pilipino rin siya whatever Constitution under which he was born. Pero pinanganak siya
noong July 04, 1946 and therefore he is under the 1935 Constitution, Pilipino na siya. So pagpasok ng 1987
Constitution he is a Filipino citizen under Paragraph A, the first paragraph, hindi na kailangang mag-elect ng
Filipino citizenship because his father and grandfather are Filipino citizens.

Hence, I would advise him to run.

RULE 113. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission
of an offense. If you take a person into custody not for purposes of finding him to answer for the commission of an
offense dahil gusto mo lang siya laging nasa tabi mo that is serious illegal detention. If you are a public officer that is
arbitrary detention. How does one make an arrest? By actual restraint of a person to be arrested or by his submission
to the custody of the person making the arrest (surrender). Hindi kailangang naka-posas basta he cannot exercise his
right of liberty because of the restraint applied upon him. Whether the arrest is valid or not no violence or unnecessary
force shall be used and he shall not be subjected to restraint greater than is necessary for his detention. The duty of an
officer of the law is to bring him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay (di pwedeng magkape

When is an arrest without warrant lawful (Section 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure)? A peace officer or a private
person may effect an arrest without a warrant arrest another person. Kahit ikaw pwedeng mang-aresto ng walang
warrant. Pag merong warrant dapat peace or police officer ang gagawa ng pag-aresto. Hindi lang nilagay dito “kung
kaya mo.” Huwag magtatapang-tapangan kung hindi mo kaya. When to make the arrest? In his presence or a police
officer the person to be arrested has committed (nangyayari pa rin in your presence hindi mo lang nakita ang aktwal na
pagsaksak, alam mong kasasaksak pa lang), is actually committing (kutsilyo nakatusok sa tiyan. Hindi ka na kukuha pa
ng warrant.) or is attempting to commit an offense (may hawak na kutsilyo at itutusok ito sa tao. Huwag ka na mag-
apply ng warrant dahil baka yun isa nakatakbo na at ang isa ay patay na. Dapat may overt act that he is attempting to
commit an offense based on his actuations or behavior.) kaya pinapayagan ang warrantless arrest is because of the
gravity of the crime, the delict is in progress, inflagrante delicto, the crime is in progress.

When an offense has just been committed (kapapangyari pa lang) and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Ano ang pagkakaiba ng
“has committed” sa “has just been committed”? Has committed – it has been committed in your presence; has just
been committed – it has been committed not in your presence pero kagaganap pa lang at meron kang probable cause na
maniwala based on facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense. Is he
really the one? We don’t know. To establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt is for the judge to find out. However, for
purposes of arresting him without warrant, the same suffice. Medyo nagkagulo-gulo kasi ito e. Moreover, ang has just
been committed dapat walang considerable lapse of time. Ibig sabihin yun offense at ang arrest ay dapat
magkadikit agad, the arrest should be made as soon as the crime is committed although you were not there in person
but you have a probable cause to believe based on facts and circumstances. Before, when an offense has just been
committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
Requirement lang na proof na standard is reasonable ground to believe. Ang problema medyo lax ang rules kasi malaki
ang tiwala dati sa pulis na hindi sila aabuso. Pero after madeklara ang martial law nang-aaresto ang pulis kahit walang
reasonable ground to believe kahit hearsay lang. Ang ginawa ng Supreme Court hinigpitan ang requirement noong
1985: when an offense has just been committed and he has personal knowledge (no longer hearsay) that the person to
be arrested has committed the offense. In the 2000 Rules pinalitan na naman. They sought the middle ground: and he
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances. Lalo tuloy gumulo. Sinabi na
nga ang probable cause, binigay pa ang definition sa iisang sentence. Samantalang understood na nga pag sinabing
probable cause ito ay facts and circumstances. Example, isang pulis na sa park. Sa bush may gumagalaw. Inilawan niya
may nakahigang babae wasak ang damit at duguan at umuungol pa. Signs that she was harassed and molested and
attacked. So may crime na na-commit. Is the crime has just been committed? Yes. Nag-ocular inspection ka sa paligid.
Sa likod ng puno may gumagalaw pag tutok ng ilaw biglang tumakbo nakahubo’t-hubad at may hawak na kutsilyo. E di
arestuhin mo na! For purposes of making an arrest okay na yun without having to make sure that he is guilty. Sayang
ang opportunity kung mag-aapply ka pa ng warrant to run after the perpetrator. Kunwari yun nakita mo sa park
kalansay. May nakita kang tumatakbo mula doon. Inaresto mo. Tinanggi ng suspek dahil kaya siya tumakbo dahil siya
man ay natakot upon seeing the skeleton. Maliban na lang kung ang krimen na involved ay pagnanakaw ng kalansay sa

Kunwari hinabol mo. Sumakay siya ng motor at ikaw sa mobile patrol. Habulan kayo for three days at umabot kayo
hanggang Baguio. Naabutan mo siya dahil naubusan siya ng gasolina. Is the arrest valid kahit 3 days? YES. Walang
puknat ang pagtugis o hot pursuit. Pero kung tumigil ka dahil nagutom ka at kumain ka ng sisig sa gilid ng tren.
Nakatulog ka at kinabukasan mo na siya hinabol. Pagdating mo sa Baguio nakita mo at inaresto mo. Hindi na ito valid
dahil huminto ka.

When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving
final judgment or has escaped when being transferred from one prison to another. He is a fugitive from justice. An
arrest is valid, with or without warrant, then you escape you can be arrested again without warrant. You were arrested
and placed in prison. You are being transported to a court to be arraigned and you escaped you can be arrested again
without warrant. You are in prison with no bail recommended. Brought to a court for your hearing and you escaped, you
can be arrested again without warrant. Or, you were sentenced and your case is on appeal then you escaped. You can be
arrested again without warrant. Final judgment and serving sentence then you escaped and you were found by
somebody and arrested without warrant.

One case happened during the time of Marcos but the decision was promulgated during the time of Cory. Umil vs.
Ramos, the accused is in the hospital and the military arrived and arrested him. He was charged with rebellion. He
argued that the arrest was without warrant thus illegal. The High Court ruled that the arrest is an exception. That he was
committing an offense in the presence of an officer of the law. What offense? The act of rebellion is a continuing
offense. The principle of a continuing offense is to favor the accused by imposing only once the penalty prescribed by
law, unlike in ordinary crimes where for every crime committed a separate penalty is imposed. This is anchored on
social justice because of the political value that the crime has in striving to change the errant ways in government,
only the means to achieve it is through the use of violence and force, which are wrong.

Warrantless Search and Seizures

Take note that ONLY a peace officer can effect a search and seizure without warrant, otherwise effected by a private
individual (like in the case of a warrantless arrest of a person) he violates the right to privacy of the owner of the place
searched or thing seized.

1. Waiver / Consent – ang right against unreasonable search and seizure (privacy right) ay personal right sa isang tao.
He is the only one who can question, waive or give consent. Hindi pwede ang kapitbahay o ang ibang tao. Kaya lang
pagdating sa bahay (lessee or tenant) or sa kotse (obligor or debtor) hindi kailangang ikaw ang owner thereof as
long as you are the lawful occupant. The members of the family of the owner are lawful occupants. Hindi sila
bisita. Security guard is not a lawful occupant hindi nga siya dapat pumapasok sa loob ng bahay. Household helpers
are not lawful occupants unless authorized by the owner to give consent. Whether they are authorized or not is
subject to proof the burden of which is placed on the State that they are lawful occupants. Merong unusual na kaso
at wag niyong gagamitin na reason lalo kung mahilig kang sumagot.

Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs. Yung customs pumunta sa condo unit ni Mr. X dahil may mga contrabands
in violation of the Customs and Tariffs Code. The agent knocked on the door of the unit of Mr. X. Upon opening
nakita nila babae. Suot pambahay, nood ng tv at kain ng mani. Tinanong nila kung pwedeng mag-search. Pinayagan
sila ng babae na mag-search na kung makaasta ay parang asawa ni Mr. X. Nag-search at nakakuha ng objects.
Kinasuhan ang may-ari. Exclusionary rule was applied dahil walang warrant. However, the Hight Court ruled that
under the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case it is sufficient to establish that the person (woman) inside was
a lawful occupant. She presented herself like a wife and common courtesy will preclude the police from inquiring if
she is really the wife. “Ikaw ba ang asawa? Weh, di nga?! Yung itsura mong yan?!” Unusual ang kasong ito at wag
ninyong gagamitin as basis in your examination answers unless the facts of the case are similar. Dumating ang pulis
without a warrant. They asked permission based on the suspicion of existence of illegal drugs inside the house.
Alam mong wala pinayagan ang search. Pagbukas ng ref may shabu. Seized. Valid? Yes. You gave your consent.

Kumatok at nagtanong kung pwedeng mag-search. Hindi ka kumibo. Nakakita ng shabu at seized it. Lumabas ang
pulis hindi ka pa rin kumibo. This is a valid search because you waived your right. Dumating ang mga pulis armado.
Kinatok ang bahay gamit ang baril. Hindi ka nakakibo sa takot at speechless ka. Umalis at may tangay na allegedly
contrabands. Pwede kang mag-object while the search is ongoing kaya lang baka upakan ka. So, the most prudent
time to object is on the presentation of evidence because the contrabands are the fruit of the poisonous search. There
is not even a valid waiver of consent considering the overwhelming presence of the police armed with powerful
firearms with a threatening and intimidating conduct. Of course it is going to be your word against the word of the
police but the burden of proof is on the State.

2. Search incident to a lawful arrest – there are TWO instances here: the arrest and the search. Dapat una ang arrest
at yung arrest dapat lawful. Para maging lawful ang arrest dapat may valid warrant or if without warrant the same
shall fall under the exceptions. Pag valid ang arrest saka pa lang pwedeng mag-search without warrant. With or
without warrant of arrest pwedeng mag-search without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest. Bakit
pinapayagan? Baka kasi pag-aresto nagre-resist. At baka he grabs a weapon which he can use against you. It is for
your protection. Or the person arrested might grab an evidence to prove the offense and destroy it (swallow or stomp
on it, etc.). so to prevent it pinapayagan kang mag-search basta incident to a lawful arrest. There are conditions

Time – dapat ang search mo immediately after the arrest.

Place – kung saan ang arrest doon din ang search.

Circumstance – pag inaresto mo siya ang search ay limited sa body niya and to his immediate surroundings
where he has effective control where he can grab a weapon against you or evidence he can destroy. So, pag-aresto
mo sa isang tao sa sala nakita mo may naka-awang na pinto sa bandang likuran niya. Pinuntahan mo at may
nakatambad na shabu sa ibabaw ng mesa, hindi na kasama ito dahil hindi ito bahagi ng immediate surroundings
where the person you arrested has effective control. Kahit i-argue mo pa na alam na alam mo kasi na may shabu
naman talaga doon. Kung alam mong meron pala e di sana nag-apply ka ng warrant tutal may probable cause ka.

Inaresto mo then searched ang katawan at malapit sa kanya may cabinet na nakasusi at siya ay nakaposas. Binuksan
mo at nakita mo may shabu. Hindi kasama ito dahil naka-lock nga ang cabinet at nakaposas pa so wala na siyang
effective control.

3. Emergency circumstance – may kudeta sa Makati Biyernes ng gabi. Nakatanggap ng info ang government forces
na ang mga rebelde ay may headquarter sa isang condo sa Makati. True enough may mga subversive materials.
Valid ba ang search and seizure? Yes because kasalukuyang may nagaganap na kudeta. It is a Friday and there is an
emergency so there is no more time to apply for a warrant.

Condition: Urgency.

4. Airport and seaport search – kapag nasa airport o seaport pwede ang otoridad mag-search ng katawan at dala-
dalahan or luggage or belongings ng isang tao. Remember the two zones of privacy: decisional privacy where you
make important decisions in life, or informational privacy meaning information that is personal to you na hindi
dapat pinamimigay kung kanino. Now ang test kung merong informational privacy ay kung meron kang
reasonable expectation of privacy, with the condition that such expectation is accepted by society to be
reasonable. Sa airport at seaport you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such places especially
crowded places at maraming bagahe na hindi mo alam ang laman. Paano kung sa city hall just the same in such
public place you do not have reasonable expectation bakit sa iyo ba ang city hall? Sa mall, private place man ito, but
with respect sa owner may right siya to impose rules. At isa dito i-search ang mga kotse na pumapasok at kapkapan
ka. Kung ayaw mo di wag kang pumasok. Hindi ka pinipilit pumapasok. Just like when you impose your own rules
in your house.

Condition: No reasonable expectation of privacy and that the privacy is accepted by society to be reasonable.
5. Moving vehicle – hindi kailangang motor vehicle as long as capable of moving from one place to another. By the
time you apply for a warrant and to get back wala na ang vehicle. Nagmo-move kasi. The vehicle can be taken to a
place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the warrant. Saan magfa-fall sa protection? Sa effects ito babagsak. A
vehicle is an extension of your house but because of the unusual situation they allow warrantless search because it
moves. Pwedeng bangka, kalesa, pedicab. Pero dapat capable of moving. Kotse nga pero ginawang lamesa sa
restaurant. Hindi pwede ganito. Pwede kang mag-apply ng warrant dahil aalis ito. Hindi kailangang gumagalaw o
umaandar habang nagse-search. Baka madisgrasya ka pa. Pahintuan mo muna. Hindi porke moving vehicle
pwedeng i-search anytime you want. May requirement: mayroong probable cause (facts and circumstance which
would lead a reasonable person to believe) halimbawa tumawag ang asset mo na nagbibigay ng description ng kotse
at info kung saan eksakto dadaan at pati ang itsura ng mga sakay. Pag daan totoo nga ang description. Nag-search
ka. Valid? Yes. You have reliable information and they matched with the actual search. Last, mauuna talaga ang
search bago ang arrest kasi nga moving vehicle. Iba ang kaso kapag stop and frisk kung saan mauuna muna ang
arrest bago ang search for your protection from possible attack by the person arrested using a concealed weapon.

Condition: Probable cause.

Plain View Doctrine without conducting a search, hindi siya pwedeng warrantless search, an illegal object is exposed
to eye or hand. Naglalakad ka may bulsa ka at nakalawit dito ay marijuana leaf at nadaanan ng pulis. Kitang-kita kaya
kinuha or seized. Valid? YES. It is an illegal object exposed to the eye. The police did not conduct a search. Therefore
not a warrantless search but a warrantless seizure. Be careful in making a distinction between a search and a seizure.
These are two different and distinct things.

Damit mong manipis parang kamison ni Mother Lily. May bulsa at kita ang object sa loob halimbawa Granada. It can
be seized because exposed to hand. Pulis nakasakay sa MRT masikip. Biglang nag-preno at napahawak ang pulis sa
baywang ng isang lalaki. Nakapa ang nakasukbit na bakal na hugis baril. Tinanong kung may lisensya at sinagot na
wala. Illegal possession of firearms—seized, exposed to hand without conducting a search.

Under this doctrine sense of sight and sense of touch are pertinent.

Naglalakad ang pulis nakita ang taong grasa may suot na brilyanteng singsing. Nakaw yan no?! Hindi daw. Pagdating
sa presinto it was found out na meron kang ninakaw na singsing at tugma sa description. Valid ba ang seize? NO.
Nakaw nga ang object pero ang singsing ay hindi illegal per se. In fact hindi malalaman ng pulis na nakaw kung hindi
nagpunta sa presinto. Dapat sa tingin pa lang illegal na ang object.

May nagpaputok ng baril sa taas na apartment unit at tumagos sa ilalim na unit. Nag-imbestiga ang pulis sa loob ng unit
at nakita ang isang stereo component na maganda. Nakaw yan? Hindi daw sabi ng may-ari. Pag-check sa presinto
nalaman na nakaw pala. Seized. Valid? NO. Dapat ang object ay illegal per se like shabu. What about guns? Sa
Amerika karapatan ang pagkakaroon ng baril batay sa sinasaad ng kanilang saligang batas. Sa Pilipinas privilege lang.
So hindi ina-assume na valid agad kapag may nakita ka. So ang presumption illegal. Tatanong kung may lisensya o
permit to carry. May license nga pero gun ban, may exemption ka ba? Pero kung bazooka, illegal ito per se. Hindi mo
na itatanong kung may license.

Condition: Exposed to eye or hand.

Moreover, hindi man ito warrantless search (kasi nga warrantless seizure) but it could lead to a warrantless search.

Stop and Frisk Doctrine or Principle

Ito nagsimula sa landmark case sa US in Terry vs. Ohio, si Detective McFadden matagal nang kabisado ang isang area
pati ang mga tao at kanilang galaw. Alam niya kung dayo ang pumapasok at lumalabas doon. May grupo ng mga
kalalakihan na parang may binabalak na masama sa isang shop. He was observing from a distance when he finally
approached them and ordered them to stop and frisked for possible weapons concealed. Ang frisk ay tapik; search
halughog. Magkaiba ito. May natapik na baril and seized. No license so he arrested them. After the arrest baka iba pang
ebidensya, thorough search na ang ginawa sa body and immediate surroundings.

Condition: Reasonable suspicion or reasonable to suspect.

First, you must stop the person to be frisked. Nag-frisk ka to protect yourself from harm. Then you seize ka kasi plain
view tinapik-tapik mo ang illegal object na exposed to hand. Dahil walang license you arrest without warrant
inflagrante delicto. Dahil lawful ang arrest ang search ay valid din as an incident thereto. Pero limited lang sa time,
place and circumstance. All valid. Pwede lahat pero dapat sundan ang order of actions.

Pulis sa Quiapo may nakitang nakatambay na mga Muslim. Nang papalapit na ang pulis bigla silang tumakbo. Nahuli
sila and a grenade was seized and presented in court as evidence. Stop and frisk daw sabi ng pulis. The High Court
ruled that when the police approached the accused they were not doing anything that would raise a suspicion of a
commission of a wrongdoing.

Doon sa karinderya ni Aling Mareng may mga kabataan na nag-iingay at nag-iinuman (reasonable suspicion dahil
mali ang ginagawa) sa kalsada. Mga adik pa yata. Pinuntahan ng pulis at verified. Pagtunog ng sirena nagpulasan.
Hinabol ng mga pulis at may mga nakumpiskang balisong at kung anu-ano. Pasok dito ang stop and frisk. Medyo under
attack ang principle na ito sa US. Kasi sinasabi ginagamit lang ito ng pulis na kadalasan ang mga target ay blacks.

May correction sa libro ni Nachura sa page 173. It reads:

“In People vs. Sy-Chua, 2003. The Supreme Court said that in a stop and frisk situation the police officer should
properly introduce himself and make initial inquiry. Kumbaga hindi basta lalapit baka akala kung sino ka lang e.
Approach and restrain a person who manifest unusual and suspicious conduct so as to raise your reasonable suspicion in
order to check the latter’s outer clothing (tapik-tapik) for possibly concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer
must have a genuine reason (reasonable ground to suspect) in accordance with the officer’s experience and the
surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons and or contrabands on or about him.

It should be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for the principle (stop and frisk) to apply.”

Marami ang naguluhan dito. Dapat “frisking” and “seizing” should precede the arrest. To be followed by a “search”.
Kasi may legal meaning na ang search at frisk kaya hindi basta-basta ginagamit ang isang term loosely.

At a police checkpoint, hindi ito warrantless search. Dati ang sabi ng SC pwede ang checkpoint during abnormal
situations. Later, ginamit na nila pag may election gun ban. Then tapos na ang election pero may checkpoint pa rin. Are
we saying that this is an abnormal situation? Later the SC decided pwede na kahit hindi abnormal situation as part of
police procedure. Pero may guidelines ang SC at reproduced by the PNP and was published for our protection and
guidance. Si Duterte nagsalita sa Davao itigil na raw ang mga checkpoint. Traffic lang at abala lang sa tao unless it is
necessary. Which means babalik na naman tayo sa unang decision ng SC in case of abnormal situations. May holdapan
sa bangko lumabas ang holdaper at inabutan ng pulis. Dahil na-describe ang sasakyan may utos na kurdon ang
perimeter at checkpoint. May abnormal situation. Hindi ko alam kung ang policy ay ibalik sa first decision ng SC. Pero
right now pwede pa rin.

Ano ang guidelines:

First, dapat may point. Nakatayo o naka-establish. At dapat maliwanag. Pero ito guidelines lang bahala ang pulis kung
gustong sundin. Hindi naman executive branch ang SC.

Second, dapat may name plate, naka-uniform. May karatula at nakasulat ang istasyon ng pulis o military where they
belong. Lowest rank ng kanilang team leader ay Inspector na nakasulat din ang pangalan niya. Pag nag-checkpoint sila
dapat magalang at pag ginawa limited to plain view lang. Yung nakikita lang nila. Hindi pwede buksan ang globe
compartment. Flashlight lang. Pero kung sa umaga gagawin at maliwanag naman, wag ka na mag-flashlight. Mukha
kang tanga. Yun normal lang. Wag kang sasakay ng helicopter tapos plain view ang apply mo. Muntanga ka nun!

Ano ang difference ng checkpoint sa moving vehicle?

Moving vehicle:

 Instance of a warrantless search

 Based on probable cause


 Plain view only; no warrantless search

 Plain view only

Pero kung may probable cause pwede ka mag-search. Sir, checkpoint lang po. Pakibuksan ang globe compartment. May
nakitang illegal object. Seized. Valid? You gave your consent, you waived your right. Ibang usapan kung kinasahan ka
ng baril kaya binuksan mo. Wag ka muna umangal. May tamang oras para umangal. Pag-present ng evidence sa court.
Consider the invalid consent given or waiver of your right due to the intimidating conduct of the police officer with
long and powerful firearm in his hand. Nagmamaneho ka beating the red light. Ticket lang ito hindi aresto. Ang tawag
ay citation ticket. Tapos nakita sa dashboard ng kotse mo marijuana leaf. Seized. This is valid. Plain View Doctrine.
You were arrested without warrant because you were inflagrante delicto committing a crime in the presence of a police
officer. And since the arrest is valid even without a warrant (inflagrante delicto), the officer can conduct a search for
your protection even without a warrant for being an incident to a lawful arrest (inflagrante delicto). The search is thus

Nagmamaneho. Checkpoint. Mukhang bata ang driver. Ilang taon ka na? 18 po. Mukha ka lang 17 and a half years
old ka lang. Lisensya? Ayaw ilabas. Pinababa siya. Kinapkapan at nakakuha ng shabu. Kinasuhan ng illegal drugs and
presented the drugs as evidence. Valid? NO. It was a checkpoint which limits the officer to plain view. Moreover there
is no probable cause to legitimize the search of the moving vehicle. And since the search is not valid, the subsequent
arrest was valid. It was not a search incident to a lawful arrest. A traffic violation is not a crime. Driving without a
license is a crime. Driving under the influence is a crime (DUI).

Merong mga offense or crime punishable by either fine or imprisonment or both. Merong ordinansa na kapag
nagmamaneho ka ng motorsiklo dapat may suot kang helmet. Kung walang suot, may fine ka. Doon sa harap ng
presinto nagtayo ng checkpoint ang pulis. Dumaan ang motorsiklo walang helmet ang driver. Dahil sa tapat ng police
station nangyari dinala na muna sa station. Pero parang hindi mapakali ang driver. Anong laman ng bulsa mo? Ilabas
mo! May shabu. Presented sa court bilang evidence. Valid arrest? NO. As a rule, for an arrest to be valid there must be a
warrant issued by a competent court based on probable cause personally determined by the judge examining under oath
the complainant or witnesses as to the facts and circumstances where the said probable cause was based. Here, there
was no arrest warrant applied for, much less served by the police officer who effected the arrest. However, an arrest
without warrant may also be valid provided any of the following exceptions are present: that a crime has been
committed; that a crime has just been committed; that a crime is being committed or inflagrante delicto; that a crime is
about to be committed; that the arrest is in the course of a hot pursuit; or that the person to be arrested is an escapee or a
fugitive from justice. In this case, none of the exceptions, especially an inflagrante delicto arrest would satisfy to declare
such arrest valid.

May valid waiver ba to search? WALA. Pinalabas sa bulsa e. Hindi rin moving vehicle dahil hindi doon nangyari.
Walang probable cause na may kinalaman sa offense. Hindi lang mapakali. In fact hindi malalaman na may lamang
shabu ang bulsa kung hindi pinalabas ang laman nito e. Sabi ng pulis search as an incident to a lawful arrest. But he was
arrested for not wearing a helmet. Dapat searched after the arrest. Ang penalty for a traffic ordinance ay fine lang, at
walang imprisonment. Dahil dito sabi ng SC kapag ang penalty ay walang imprisonment they should not have
arrested him. Kahit nga guilty siya imposition ay fine lang. At dahil hindi lawful ang arrest hindi pwedeng search as an
incident to a lawful arrest. Sabi ng pulis, inaresto nga dun pa lang sa motor. Kung tatawagin mong arrest yun why do
you have to arrest him again when you saw the shabu? This is a second arrest. Bakit gagawin uli ang arrest kung
arestado na pala siya? Kasi nga hindi siya arestado in the first instance.

Nakasakay sa pedicab ang isang mama may dalang bayong. Gabi. Lumapit ang dalawang pulis. Sabi, anong laman ng
bayong mo? Boss, pag-usapan na lang natin ito. Hindi. Buksan mo. Ang laman baril. Inaresto at processed. Is the arrest,
search and seizure valid? NO. As a rule, for an arrest, search and seizure to be valid there must be a warrant issued by a
competent court based on probable cause personally determined by the judge examining under oath the complainant or
witnesses as to the facts and circumstances where the said probable cause was based. Here, there was no arrest warrant
applied for, much less served by the police officer who effected the arrest, search and seizure. However, an arrest
without warrant may also be valid provided any of the following exceptions are present: that a crime has been
committed; that a crime has just been committed; that a crime is being committed or inflagrante delicto; that a crime is
about to be committed; that the arrest is in the course of a hot pursuit; or that the person to be arrested is an escapee or a
fugitive from justice. In this case, none of the exceptions, especially an inflagrante delicto arrest would satisfy to declare
such arrest valid because driving a pedicab, carrying a “bayong” and uttering the words “boss, pag-usapan na lang natin
ito.” are not illegal acts per se. Hindi rin pwede ang search as an incident to a lawful arrest. Baligtad nga ang nangyari e.
Lalo na, hindi nga lawful ang arrest.

May pulis pumunta ng Baguio. Gabi na. Ihing-ihi na. Pinarada sa maluwag na lugar para umihi. Nung isasara na ang
zipper pag yuko niya may nakitang marijuana. Seized. Valid? NO. Hindi moving vehicle. Hindi rin emergency. Kahit
may probable cause dahil itsurang marijuana at amoy marijuana ang tanim, you have all the time to apply for a warrant
dahil hindi aalis yun dun.

Nagtanung-tanong ang mga pulis kung saan ang taniman ng marijuana. Kung saan-saan sila tinuro hanggang nagkahilo-
hilo na sila. Finally nakita nila. Seized. Valid? NO. Hind plain view dahil nahilo-hilo nga kahahanap. Wala ring
emergency. They can apply for a warrant anytime.

Ang oras ng trabaho ng pulis ay 8am to 5pm. Biyernes at long weekend. Nag-apply siya ng leave tamang-tama Undas.
5pm pauwi na biglang tumawag ang asset niya. Bukas (Sabado) ng 8 ng umaga may lalabas na kontrabando sa Gate 1
ng Pier, ito plate number at pangalan ng truck. 6:30am pa lang nandun na ang pulis. Eksakto lumabas ang truck.
Pinahinto at searched. Seized. Valid? YES. As a rule, a search or seizure to be valid must be upon order of a court
pursuant to a warrant. However, a search or seizure may be valid even without a warrant provided the same fall under
the specific exceptions, here, in particular, moving vehicle. In this case, the search and the subsequent seizure took
place in a moving vehicle. Moreover, the condition of probable cause must be present. Here, the probable cause to
believe that illegal objects are loaded inside the truck was based on facts (tinawag sa pulis) and circumstances
(nagtugma ang info sa actual na pangyayari) as narrated and relayed to the police officer on the phone by his source of
information. Pag luwas ng pulis galing probinsya, Miyerkules na. Tumawag ang tipster na 8am sa Sabado may
kontrabando uli na ilalabas sa pier. Dumating ang Sabado. Hinarang ang truck at kinuha ang laman. Valid? NO. Mula
Miyerkules hanggang Sabado meron ang pulis na dalawang araw para mag-apply ng warrant to make the search and
seizure valid.

MAG-INGAT SA FACTS. Magbago lang kahit kaunti ang facts IBA na ang sagot.

Checkpoint. Pinabababa ng pulis ang pasahero. Ang pasahero ay nakapag-aral siguro ng law kaya tumanggi.
Kinaladkad ng pulis hanggang sa police station. Valid? NO. Limited sa plain view lang. Arogante sumagot. Kahit na.
Ang pagiging arogante hindi nag-creat ng probable cause.

May nangyari sa loob ng bahay, gabi yun pumasok na dalawang mama nakamaskara. Kapitbahay ka at natanaw at
narinig mo sinasabi, “tama na babayaran kita.” Sabay nakita mo pinagpapalo ng baseball bat ang ale. Paglabas sa bahay
nasilip mo at naplakahan mo ang motorsiklo. Ni-report mo kinabukasan. Nag-inspect sa subdivision at nakita ang
motorsiklo sa loob ng garahe ng isang bahay. Kumatok ang pulis at tinanong ang may-ari ng bahay. Si Diego daw. Wala
siya nasa Amerika. Baka pwedeng i-search ang motorsiklo. Hindi pwede. Ayaw pumayag. Pero natakot ang katiwala.
Pinapasok ang pulis at binuksan ang globe compartment ng motor at natagpuan ang maskara at gloves. Used as
evidence. Valid? NO. Kahit may probable cause based on a report at sa motor vehicle nakita ang evidence, hindi siya
moving. Nakaparada pa nga sa loob ng garahe. To reach the motor vehicle you have to enter the house, to enter the
house you need a warrant. Also, paano magiging search incident to a lawful arrest kung ang aarestuhin ay nasa
Amerika. Plain view? Hindi nasa loob ng globe compartment. May waiver? Wala. Kasi yun katiwala walang authority
to waive. In fact kahit i-waive niya ang pag-search ng bahay, paano ang motor vehicle?

Opisina ng civil service commission. May isang empleyado binigyan ng computer ng office para gamit niya sa trabaho.
Meron din siyang opisina. Yun opisina parang barangay hall kahit sino pwede pumasok pati ang paggamit ng computer
na walang password. Nagkaroon siya ng kaso administrative. Ginawa ng opisina kinuha ang computer at binuksan ang
files para malaman ang content. Invasion of privacy at walang warrant, sigaw ng empleyado. Sabi ng SC walang
reasonable expectation of privacy sa paggamit ng computer, firstly hindi sa kanya at secondly kahit sino nakakapasok sa
office at wala pa ngang password ito. The case is different if the computer is a personal property of the employee. Dapat
may warrant.

Sa school. Random drug testing. Lahat ng nakaupo sa row 3 punta sa clinic. Valid? YES. When you enrolled you signed
a contract with the school and part of the contract is to observe the reasonable rules and regulations of the school. You
agreed, you waived your right when you signed the enrolment contract with the school. What about in the office? The
same applies because when you signed the employment contract you bind yourself to follow the reasonable rules and
regulations of the company. What about an accused? Pwede ba i-drug test? HINDI. Kasi hindi na siya pwede i-drug test
dahil suspect na siya. Sa stage na yun meron na siyang right against self-incrimination and he remains innocent until
proven guilty in court. Pwede bang iutos ng batas with respect to members of Congress? NO. The qualifications for a
member of the Senate and the House are provided for by the Constitution. Providing for additional qualification must be
done through an amendment of the charter.

May mama bumaba ng bus terminal at naglalakad na siya palayo. May report ang police na merong mama na ganun ang
suot and everything galing sa kung saang lugar at dadating sa terminal ng bus sa Maynila. So nung nakita ang mama na
naglalakad na may hawak na plastic bag, pinabuksan sa kanya ng pulis. May illegal objects. Valid? NO. Walang
warrant. At kung warrantless, wala naman siyang ginagawa naglalakad lang siya. Dapat pasok ang exceptions. Wala
naman isa sa mga yun ang present dito. Merong probable cause galing sa informant. Pero wala siya sa moving vehicle
dahil nakababa na nga siya e.

May report ang pulis meron isang asian manggagaling sa Sagada sakay ng ganitong bus. Umakyat sa bus ang pulis at
nakakita ng asian na tugma sa description. May dalang bag. Pinabuksan at may lamang marijuana. Kinuha. Valid? This
one is controversial. At any rate the SC ruled that it is valid. There was probable cause based on facts (tip by an
informant) and circumstances (nag-match ang description sa tao). Pero ang controversial ay hindi naman alam ang
laman ng bag para masabi na may dalang shabu, walang waiver of consent. Sa kabilang banda, kahit may mga
questionable na portions sa decision ng SC ang tinitingnan din naman dito ay ang legal basis mo when you argue. Kung
minsan kasi hindi mo tatamaan ng eksakto ng sagot mo ang tanong. Pero in case of doubt, you argue against search and
seizure. Kasi ito naman talaga ang general rule at presumption in favor of privacy under the Constitution. Tingnan ang
facts kung na-overcome ang presumptions o ang general rule.

Nagkaroon ng search, seizure and arrest. Kine-claim mo na illegal ang arrest and seizure. Pero alam mo na kapag ikaw
ay na-arraign na you waive your right to question the illegality of the arrest. Notwithstanding this, you can question the
illegality of the search and seizure. These two matters are separate. Assuming illegal ang arrest hindi ibig sabihin hindi
ka pwede masentensyahan lalo kung there other evidence to show that apart from the illegal arrest you are guilty of
other offenses. Dati sinasabi natin sa illegal possession of firearm dapat i-present as evidence ang firearm kasi ito ang
corpus delicti. SC says hindi kailangan i-present ang firearm as evidence dahil merong documentary evidence if a
firearm exist. Parang homicide. Ang corpus delicti ang patay. Hindi kailangang i-present sa court ang bangkay. Pwede
kung Halloween!

Nag-conduct ng search by virtue of a valid warrant or arrest by virtue of a valid warrant hindi kailangan at the time you
are being arrested or search ay dala ang warrant. Pwedeng hindi. Basta may existing na valid warrant. Kasi hindi naman
kung kailan siya makikita to arrest. Basta pag ginawa na i-present sa court ang tao dapat i-present din ang warrant. May
petsa naman yun.

Rolito Dog. May naganap na barilan. For six days nasa diyaryo at telebisyon ang balita. Nakita ni Rolito Dog sa news
ang mukha niya. Pumunta siya sa presinto at nagtanong. He was arrested. Valid? NO. Firstly, as a rule there must be a
valid warrant. Except in the case of warrantless arrest where any of the exceptions must be present. Here, there was no
warrant issued and the warrantless arrest does not fall under any of the exceptions. In fact he was not surrendering but

Ang hirap sa bentahan ng drugs ang hirap hulihin. Apply ka ng warrant saan mo huhulihin? The deals are done in the
most secret places. Hindi mo alam kung saan. Ang gagawin para mahuli caught in the act of inflagrante delicto. Paano
mo mahuhuli kung hindi mo alam saan magta-transact? Ikaw ngayon ang gagawa ng eksena para mahuli red handed.
Gagawin mo nagbebenta siya ng shabu, bumili ka man o hindi nagbebenta siya talaga. Gusto mo lang mahuli siya sa
akto. Ginawa mo may asset ka na kunwari buyer. Ito pera. Pag-abot ng pera at inabot ang shabu, signal ka sa akin.
Lalapit ako at huhulihin ko. Nahuli. Wala kaming ginagawa. Pero may marked money na inabot. At totoo nga positive
na markado ang pera to show that there was a crime committed. But the marked money alone without corroborating
evidence is not enough to establish probable cause or justify an inflagrante delicto case. People vs. Enrile.

Dumating ang pulis may kasamang teenager. Si Mang Gusting nagbebenta po ng shabu yan. Samahan ninyo ako sabi ng
pulis. Kumatok ang mga kabataan, pabili ng shabu. Hindi ako nagbebenta. Nainip ang pulis niyugyog ang pinto
hanggang nakapasok sa loob. Tumambad ang maraming shabu. Seized. Valid? NO. At the time of the arrest he was not
committing an offense. Hindi plain view dahil nasa loob ng bahay at pinasok mo nga illegally. Marked money. Marked
money without corroborating evidence is not enough.

Pwede kaming mag-search sa bahay sabi sa katulong. Balita namin may nagtatagong rebelde diyan. Pinapasok. Sa
paghalughog ng tokador may nakitang baril. Seized. Walang license. Valid? Kasi ang waiver ay para lang sa rebelde
hindi sa baril. Pumunta ang pulis. Balita namin merong armalite diyan. Search. May consent or waiver. Sa likod ng
kusina may brown bag na ang laman ay marijuana. Valid? NO. Ang waiver ay para sa baril at hindi sa marijuana. Hindi
plain view dahil nasa loob ng bag. In other words, kung may waiver or consent para mag-search, ang pwede lang i-seize
ay ang object that was presumed by the police as illegal. Kahit saan pa nakatago basta ang bagay lang na iyun. Subalit,
kung may ibang bagay na i-seize liban sa object na pakay ng police, dapat plain view. Dahil kung hindi plain view,
invalid at illegal ang search and seizure. Isa pa, kung may nakitang ibang illegal object dahil naghalughog pang lalo sa
mga nakatago, again, invalid at illegal ang search and seizure.
Pwedeng mag-search balita namin may shabu. Pinapasok. May waiver or consent. Binuksan ang drawer may baril.
Seized. Walang license. Valid? YES. Plain view kasi. Exposed to eye. Hindi naman naghalughog kung saan-saan pa na

May warrant na valid. Complete serial number of an armalite. Nakita. Naghanap pa at may nakitang marijuana. Valid?
NO. Once the object of the search and seizure warrant is found, all other searches and seizures should stop.

Valid search warrant. Armalite. Nakita or hindi man. Palabas na ang pulis. Nakita sa sala ang shabu. This is plain view
inadvertently kaya pwedeng i-seize.
November 06, 2016

Article Three: Bill of Rights

(Insert): Pelaez vs. Governor General; Magdano vs. Silvosa; Hebron vs. Reyes

Section 3 (1). Privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except if there is a lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Ano ang similarity ng Section 3 at Section 2? They are both rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, both
right to privacy the right to be left alone. This is one of the zones of privacy in the constitution. The other is section 2.
There are other zones of privacy in statutes like non-revelation of trade secrets in the Revised Penal Code, etc. Ano
naman ang kaibahan ng mga ito sa isa’t-isa? Section 2 ang sine-secure ay houses, paper, persons and effects.
Nahahawakan ang mga ito o tangibles. Ang communication at correspondence ay intangibles. Pero sinama sa protection
pa rin. In fact kahit wala ang section 3 par 1 sakop pa rin sa section 2 kaya lang ginawa sa consti na maliwanag. Dahil
ang section 2 ay kinopya natin sa us constitution ay nagkaroon ng kaso sa America: Katz vs. US. Gumagamit siya ng
payphone sa booth at tumatawag siya para tumaya sa karera ng kabayo. Bawal sa us ang wagering using telephone. Para
mahuli siya at malaman ang conversation ay tungkol sa pustahan, police authorities placed a device hindi nakakabit sa
phone pero na-sensor ang sound waves malapit sa phone booth para marinig ang usapan. The police presented it in
court as evidence to prove the offense. He objected on the ground that there is no search warrant. The police argued na
wala silang kinukuha o seized kay Katz kaya no need for a search warrant. Nakikinig lang naman sila. US SC ruled that
protection against unreasonable search and seizure covers also intangibles like conversations and communications.
Dinaig pa natin ang US kasi sa kanila jurisprudence ito, sa atin we embedded it in our Constitution. Nagkakatalo lang sa
implementation. Hinawalay ito sa section 2 para i-emphasize na it is a different object—intangible things.

So inviolable yan. Except when there is a lawful order of the court. Ano ang tawag sa lawful order? E di search warrant
or search and seizure warrant. Therefore it must comply with the requisites of a valid warrant: existence of probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainants or
witnesses; particular description of the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized.

I have no problem with the first three requirements. Sa fourth meron: particular description of the thing to be seized—
communication and conversation. How can the judge put in the warrant the particular description the conversations to
be seized when the same have yet to be uttered by the conversants? Hindi pa nga sila nagsasalita. Paano makaka-
comply? Bago sa compliance, any evidence obtained in violation of this section is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. Hindi pwedeng tanggapin. Paragraph 2, Section 3: the Exclusionary Rule. You exclude it as inadmissible
evidence. Now, pwede ring iregulate or inhibit if public safety or order requires it as otherwise prescribed by law. There
is a law prescribing it—Republic Act 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. It is a 1960s law. Under it it prohibits the
interception, seizure of any private conversation between two or more parties without the consent of the conversants
one or both with the use of a device like the detectaphone or Dictaphone or other similar device like the tape recorder.
Kunwari nag-uusap tayong dalawa tapos nire-record mo pag-uusap natin hindi ko alam it violates section 3, article 3 of
the Constitution. Therefore you cannot use it as an evidence in court. In fact that is a violation of RA 4200. Dito ang
epekto sa Constitution ng violation, inadmissible in evidence lang, walang parusa. Pero sa statute may parusang
imprisonment. Kunwaring nagle-lecture ako nang hindi ko alam nire-record mo pala. May violation ba ng RA 4200?
Wala dahil the lecture is not a private conversation. What about violation of intellectual property rights? Kung ikaw
lang ang gagamit at hindi mo pinagkakitaan o pahiram mo sa mga kasama mo based on fair use for academic purposes
walang violation. Pero kung pinagkakitaan mo hindi na fair use therefore may paglabag.

Sina A, B, at C ay magkakaibigan. Sina A at B nasa Manila habang si C ay nasa Davao. Sinabi ni C kay A na tatawag
siya sa kanya sa Linggo. Sinabi ni A kay B dahil gusto rin ni B na sorpresahin si A. Gamit ang extension phone unit
sabay na sinagot nina A at B ang tawag ni C. May mga bagay na sinabing hindi maganda si C tungkol kay B na narinig
ni B. Nag-testify si B laban kay C base sa kanyang narinig. Is there violation of Section 3 privacy of communication in
the Constitution? Hindi. What about RA 4200? No. The law makes mention of installing a device purposely and
deliberately to intercept the conversation. Moreover, telephone units are of common usage nowadays. Is it admissible in
evidence in court? Yes. Because when you talk via telephone there is nothing private in the conversation. Chances are
may nakakarinig na iba: partyline, crossline, extension line, public address system na nga ngayon. Or may nakikinig sa
labas ng room.

Nagda-drive si A ng kotse kasama si B. Tumawag si C. A pressed the loud speaker so that B heard slanderous and
malicious statements of C against B. B testified against C. Is this valid? Yes. Was there violation of privacy of
communication? No. Because there is nothing private in the conversation. Moreover the loud speaker was pressed by A
which shows that the conversation was not intended to be so. Pero high tech ang kanyang phone—IPhone 26 S+++. It is
capable of automatically recording phone conversations without the party on the other end knowing that their
conversation is being recorded. Can the telephone conversation be used as evidence in court? No. Ni-record e. Even if it
is a cellular phone that was used, an electronic device which was not even contemplated by RA 4200 way back in the
1960s, still, what is central here is the recording capability of a device which was capitalized purposely and deliberately
to intercept a conversation. Besides during the time of the enactment of RA 4200 there were devices available in the
market that are capable of capturing audio and visual conversations on tape.

A is studying in a coffeeshop and records his own voice while he recites provisions and principles of law. Sa kabilang
mesa may nag-aaway at na-record sa device mo. Nalaman ng isa sa mga nag-aaway na may record ka at ginamit bilang
evidence sa korte laban sa kaaway niya. Is this valid? Yes. Is this a violation of RA 4200? No. There is nothing private
in the conversation between the two adversarial parties because it happened in full view at a coffee shop which is a
public place. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy to speak of.

Sa lobby ng isang hotel may nag-aaway at nakunan ng cctv. Pwede bang gamitin bilang ebidensya ang cctv recording?
Yes. Public place yun e. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that place. In fact without a cctv recording
there might be bystanders or spectators capturing the incident on video.

A police officer is monitoring the cctv when he noticed a person committing theft approached the thief and arrested him
without a warrant. Is this valid? Yes. As a rule, for an arrest of a person to be valid it must be upon a lawful order of a
court based on probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examining under oath or affirmation the
complainant or witnesses, except in cases of warrantless arrest, which, among the enumerations to render an arrest
valid, an arrest made in flagrante delicto is allowed. Here, the cctv recording was used as basis by the police officer to
effect the arrest is considered an inflagrante delicto arrest at the precise moment while the crime is in progress in his
presence. Such arrest does not require a warrant from the court.

Ang problema sa search and seizure warrant to be issued by the court ay with respect sa 4 th requirement: the description
of the thing to be seized which is an intangible thing, that is, a conversation which is yet to be uttered by the
conversants. For logical reason, it is greatly impossible for the court to determine with specificity the description of the
conversation that is yet to exist. Thus, to comply with the fourth requisite, RA 4200 prescribed mechanics:

FIRST, the conversation to be seized just like any other thing subject of a seizure must have a connection to the offense
being charged. Kahit hindi recording, letter, correspondence, sumulat ka o sinulatan ka, pulis humingi ng search warrant
sa judge to seize a letter habang nasa koreyo o mail pa for the crime of rebellion. Nag isyu ng warrant, binuksan at
binasa ang sulat. Tapos may nabasa tungkol sa ibang crime tulad ng estafa which has nothing to do with the furtherance
of rebellion. Tapos ginamit ng police yun sulat na may sinasaad tungkol sa estafa at ginamit bilang ebidensya sa
nakabinbin na kasong estafa or ginamit para kasuhan ng estafa. Hindi pwedeng gamitin ito bilang ebidensya kahit
meron pang search warrant. Take note, that insofar as the police officer is concerned, he is an Intruder into the
conversation between the sender of the mail and the mail addressee which has nothing to do with the offense being

SECOND, kailangan nasa warrant kung sino ang pulis na magwa-wiretap, sino ang taong iwa-wiretap at anong
telephone number ang gagamitin na pang-wiretap, may period lang kung kailan lang siya magwa-wiretap. Ang validity
ng warrant ay ten (10) days. Extendible naman ito. Otherwise illegal ang search and seizure ng wiretapped
conversation. At inadmissible pa as evidence ang object ng seizure. Ang letter ay HINDI kasama sa Anti-Wiretapping
Act dahil wala namang wire o kable ang sulat. Pero pasok ito sa privacy of correspondence. So pag letter lang ang
epekto ay inadmissible in evidence lang. Example, may pulis na armado ng warrant: may probable cause determined
personally by the judge, at in compliance with the Anti-Wiretapping law andun lahat ng mechanics. At ang offense
charged ay rape. Dahil may warrant nag-wiretap at nakakuha ng conversation sa pagitan ng accused at co-accused.
“Pare, anong ginawa mo sa panty ng babae? Sunugin mo na yan baka may makakita pa niyan.” Is that a violation of the
Anti-Wiretapping law? Yes. Can it be used as evidence in court? No. Because the anti-wiretapping law is applicable
only to offenses involving public safety or order, national security offenses like rebellion, sedition, coup d’etat,
treason, espionage, inciting to sedition, inciting to rebellion. Hindi kasama ang mga ordinary crimes like rape,
UNLESS, it is in furtherance of said national security offenses.

You are an employee of a company. The supervisor wrote a letter to the manager reporting that your tardiness and
laziness at work. Merong imputation of a wrong laban sa iyo. Merong publication dahil sinabihan ang manager mo
(third party), identifiable (dahil ikaw ang tinutukoy). Libel ba? No. Kulang ng isang element—malicious. Dapat ginawa
not in good faith or ginawa in bad faith. However if it is done out of a legal, moral, social duty such that you were
reported to the manager as to your conduct as an employee, the reporting is done out of legal, moral and social duty
hence not the same was not done in bad faith. Walang element of bad faith.

A professor catches you cheating in the exam. Sumulat sa dean at ni-report ka para magsagawa ng investigation for
possible disciplinary action. May imputation of the wrong—nandadaya. May publication—sinabi sa dean (third party).
Identifiable—ikaw. Libel ba? No. Walang element of malice. Why? It is the legal, moral and social duty of the
professor to correct the misconduct of his student. Cheating is a misconduct.

Ikaw ay sumulat sa classmate mo sinabi mo mandaraya siya, tarantado siya at maghihirap siya sa pag-aaral niya. May
imputation of a wrong—masasama kasi ang sinabi. Identifiable—classmate mo. May malice—walang good faith na
makikita dahil in the first place it does not present anything of good value. Libel ba? No. Kulang ng isang element—
publication. Dalawa lang kayo. Publication means there is a third party involved and you are making the issue public
outside the two of you. Walang honor o reputasyon na nasira dahil wala namang ibang nakarinig o nakaalam maliban sa
inyong dalawa.

Ikaw ay sumulat sa classmate mo. Sinabi mo siya ay mandaraya sa exam. However, you photocopied the letter and
distributed it among your classmates. Is this libel? Yes. Where is your good faith para sabihan mo ang mga classmates
mo? Sana sinabi mo sa professor mo o sa proper authorities. Wala namang magagawa ang classmates mo. Wala kang
intensyon except to malign your classmate.

Minura-mura mo ang classmate mo sa loob ng isang room na kayong dalawa lang ang nakakarinig. Walang libel dito.
Pero kung kinuha mo ang public address system ng Arellano, pinagmumura mo ang classmate mo, ang kanyang tatay
ay magnanakaw at ang nanay ay pokpok, this is a clear case of libel. Ganun din kung pinaskil mo sa bulletin board.
“Totoo namang nandadaya siya sa exam!” Maaaring totoo pero tandaan mo na ang katotohanan ay hindi depensa sa
libel—truth is not a defense against libel. The test is not whether a remark or statement is true or not. The test in libel
cases is whether there is good faith or bad faith. Nasaan ang good faith dun? Kung gusto mo na tulungan ang kaklase
mo na makapagbago para hindi na mandaya sa exam dapat sinabi mo sa tamang otoridad. Hindi dapat ipagkalat sa
ibang tao.

May kumakalat na papel sa campus. Nakasulat: “isang guwapong propesor ng Arellano College of Law
nakikipagrelasyon sa kanyang estudyante.” May isang tao na nakabasa: “propesor ako, dito ako nagtuturo sa Arellano
College of Law, higit sa lahat guwapo ako. Ako ang tinutukoy dito!” Is this libel? No. The subject of the libel must be
identifiable with specificity. Plain description of his personal identity or of his professional background is not sufficient.

“Mga Pilipino tamad!” Pilipino ako. Tamad ako? Libel? No. Wala namang tinutukoy na specific na tao. General
statement nga e.

However, hindi mo kailangang banggitin ang pangalan ng isang tao para maging libel kung ang description ay
tumutumbok sa kanya. Isang senador ng Pilipinas na isang noontime show host. Isa lang siya kahit hindi mo

Sa Privilege Communication may legal, social at moral duty. Ito ay either absolute o conditional. Absolute:
members of Congress, members of Judiciary, officials ng executive branch like the President. Sinabi ni Senator Maceda
sa kanyang privilege speech na may mga artista na nagpupunta ng Brunei na binabayaran for sex ng king, kasama sa
pangalan si Ruffa Gutierrez. Yun ibang pinangalanan binawi niya pero hindi ang pangalan ni Ruffa. Walang nagawa si
Annabel dahil ito ay absolute privilege communication in the performance of his official function. Pero nung nag-guest
siya sa show ni Julie Yap Daza hindi siya nagbanggit dahil baka mademanda siya. Hindi ito privilege communication in
the performance of his official function. Ang Presidente naglabas ng listahan ng sangkot sa droga. He is doing this in
the performance of his official function. Again this is privilege communication which is absolute. Kung hindi official
function hindi siya pwedeng idemanda sa ngayon dahil immune siya from suit. Pag tapos na ang termino niya pwede na.
Si fiscal in prosecuting an accused cannot be charged with libel for imputing a wrong against the latter because he is
doing it in the performance of a legal duty. Trabaho niya ito otherwise tanggal siya sa trabaho. A judge sentenced you
guilty for the commission of a crime. This is done in the performance of his official function as a matter of legal duty as
a member of the bench.

In conditional privilege communication in the case of members of the media, they are allowed to exercise such
privilege by reporting on television or radio court proceedings or congressional hearings. Since it is conditional the
condition is that the reporting should be a fair and straightforward reporting. No commentaries are allowed to be
stated. Hindi pwedeng pumasok na po ang akusado sa loob ng hukuman at tinawag na ang mga testigo. Mukhang
guilty! This is wrong. Kaya hindi basta pinapayagan ang mga camera sa court. Sa ibang bansa sketch lang ang
pinapakita sa public. Because the camera may impress different interpretations to the viewers. But in the case of the
Maguindanao Massacre the High Court allowed the entrance of cameras inside the court room. The reason of the Court
is for the benefit of the public’s right to information on matters of public interest. This is a dilemma however that the
court had to face where it had to strike a good balance between the public’s right to know and the court’s fair
administration of justice. Baka kasi ma-impluwensyahan si judge. Ang technology can be used to find a common
ground to serve mutually these two interests. Pwede na ang isang camera sa loob ng court room, isa lang ang pwesto at
controlled by the Supreme Court ang pagpaling nito. Isa lang ang camera kasi sa dami ng interested parties at liit ng
silid. Pero makapal ang guidelines na nilabas ng SC.

Isa pang conditional privilege communication, hindi pwedeng i-compel ang asawa magsalita tungkol sa mga bagay na
pinag-usapan nilang mag-asawa kagabi bago sila natulog. Except kung silang dalawa ang nagdedemandahan. Hindi rin
pwede pilitin ang isang doctor na magsalita tungkol sa sakit ng kanyang pasyente unless ang pasyente mismo ang
magsiwalat. This is covered by doctor-patient privilege communication. Ganun din ang abogado. Hindi pwedeng pilitin
ibulgar kung ano ang pinag-usapan nila ng kanyang akusado unless ang akusado ang maglalabas sa publiko. This is
covered by attorney-client privilege communication. Any act outside of this violates legal ethics for lawyers or what is
called “ambulance chasing’. Also include guidance counsellor-ward relationship sa conditional privilege

Bumili ka ng condom ang tatak “amparo” meaning “to protect”. Habang bumibili ka nakita mo si Sarah Lahbati. Inusisa
mo ang pharmacist kung ano ang binili. Hindi pwede magsalita ang pharmacist otherwise matatanggalan siya ng

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

This is addressed to the Legislative and Quasi-Legislative bodies because of the words “no law”. There are Five rights
mentioned here: Speech, Expression, Press, Peaceful Assembly and Petition for Redress. Kung igu-group mo sila into
two: speech, expression and press belong to one group; and assembly and petition to another group. Kung tatawagin mo
sila sa isang right lahat sila freedom of speech and expression. Noong lumang constitutions natin tulad ng kinopya natin
sa US Constitution wala yun expression. Siningit lang yun. For emphasis lang ng naman na hindi lang oral speech ang
covered o communication kundi pati written and other forms of communication and expression like the wearing of
armbands, headbands, hand gestures, emblems, sculpture, music the use of a jingle, arts. So all forms of expression are
covered. Whether they are oral, gestures, hand signals, yellow ribbon, red ribbon, lahat may meaning. Bakit kasali ang
assembly? Kasi it is a form of expression. Anong saysay ng petition sa government kung ikaw lang mag-isa. Hindi
bawal basta peaceful. Itaas ang sahod, ibaba ang matrikula at pamasahe at gasolina. Sabi ni Wendell Philips the bright
consuming rights of freedom. Katapat lang nito religion. Kaya nasa First Amendment ng US Constitution. This defines
what we are as a human being. Nakaka-communicate at nakaka-express kasi tayo.

Ito nakatutok na naman sa government dahil “no law shall be passed”. Sa US vs. Bustos, sinabi ng Supreme Court ang
kasaysayan ng free speech and expression in the Philippines sinimulan sa the Philippine A Century Hands by Dr. ???
hanggang sa Dekalogo ni Mabini, ang La Solidaridad, ang mga Kababaihan ng Malolos, the development of the
Constitution from the Malolos Constitution hanggang sa 1987 Constitution. Why is free speech important especially in
a democratic State like the Philippines? It is important because there must be a full discussion of public officers and
their public function. Public officers should not be thin-skinned or onion-skinned “balat-sibuyas”. You expect criticism
which must be for the common good. Nung tinanggap mo ang trabaho for public office. They have the right to be
criticized because their salary comes from the people.

Public opinion is the source of liberty and democracy. The test here is bonafide or good faith at nabanggit na ito sa
privilege communication. Sa New York Times vs. Sullivan a landmark case on free speech which cited the importance
of free press. Public discussion is a political duty. It is a right to speak one’s mind. Nag-publish ang New York Times
ng isang story tungkol sa isang police na pinad-lock daw ng police ang isang school canteen sa iskwelahan na parang
racist siya. Sabi ng hepe na si Sullivan, he is the commissioner of the city he is the one being referred to na nag-utos ng
closure dahil wala namang iba. Kahit sabihin mo na ikaw yun ikaw ay public official and it pertains to your official
function. You should not be thin-skinned. Kung meron mang erroneous sa report sabi ng SC erroneous statement is
inevitable in free speech. Kung babawasan ang guarantee sa free speech simply because it might be erroneous the one
that will suffer is the free debate. Whatever is sided to the field of libel is taken from the free debate. Kapag nagkaroon
ng speech may speaker. Merong intended receiver. Pag nagsasalita ka ng wala kang kausap medyo may sayad ka o
nagkakabisado ka. In between nandiyan ang speech.
A police officer applies for a warrant to search a publishing house. According to him said publishing house is producing
smut materials which are obscene thus an affront to the people’s public morals. The court should deny the application.
As a rule a warrant to search a place must be based on facts and circumstances which have a direct connection to the
probable cause. Here, the police in saying that the materials in the premises are obscene is not based on facts and
circumstances but his mere conclusion of law.

Assumptions: (1) imputation of a wrong, vice (“may tulo ka” or to blacken the memory of the dead) or defect (“cheater
ka”); (2) publication; and (3) identifiable:

SPEAKER (person) SPEECH (content) RECEIVER (person) LIBEL? (if statement is . . .)

1. Private private private True: Yes; False: Yes.

Example: “Hoy pare alam mo ba na si Tasing ay nakiki-apid sa driver ko.” Truth is not a defense against libel.
You cannot publish the private life of a private person. This is called GAG Law. I am curious why this
law does not appear in discussions in law books. Another is SHIELD Law. Under this law, a reporter
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of his information. Otherwise remove this protection and obtain
the information from the reporter by compulsion no one will witness or “whistleblow” on issues involving
corrupt acts of public official for fear of either imprisonment or violence or even death. As a result the
public will suffer. They will no longer be informed.

2. Private Private Public True: Yes; False: Yes

Being a public official does not mean losing his private life.

In Nos. 1 and 2 malice is presumed or there is malice in law because involved is the private life of a private person. It
need not be proved. Take note that malice is an element. In libel the offending party has the burden of proving all the
elements except this one because it is presumed in this particular case.

3. Private Public (official function) Public True: Yes;

False: With malice: Yes;
Without malice: No.

“Mario is a public official who entered into a government contract which provides stipulations and agreements that are
disadvantageous to public interest.” As a citizen I have a privilege communication to say that. I have a legal, moral and
social duty to say this because the disadvantageous agreements affect the public who are taxpayers. I filed an action.
Thus, the public official filed libel against me. All elements are present. The question is whether there is malice. Hindi
ko naman talaga trabaho mag-report nang ganito, concern lang ako. Since ako ang sinampahan ng libel, the public
official must prove that I did it in the absence of good faith therefore with malice. There is bad faith in order to convict
me. Here there is no presumption of malice because my publication is not about his private life but his public and
official function affecting public interest. This is not malice in law but malice in fact.

4. Press Private Private True: Yes; False: Yes.

A member of the press has no business reporting the private life of a private person. It does not give you an extra
privilege to malign a private person about his private life. In fact dahil private matter ito at walang public interest
involved, ito ay malice in law agad. Presumed agad ang malice.

5. Press Public Private True: No:

False: With malice: Yes;
Without malice: No.

Paano nagkaroon ng public interest ang isang isyu patungkol sa isang private person. Maybe because the private person
is a public figure. Sino ang mga ito? Those who because of their profession, lifestyle, fame, accomplishment, mode of
living or by adopting a calling which gives a public a legitimate interest in their doings, affairs, character have become a
public personage or celebrities. The SC cited in Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong. Kung may public interest
about that private person parang naging public person na rin siya dahil public figure siya.
6. Press Private Public

7. Press Public Public True: No; False: No.

Kung public official ang involve na may kinalaman sa kanyang public function at member ka ng press. At dahil trabaho
bilang press ay mag-report ang presumption ng law ay ginawa mo ang reporting out of legal, social and moral duty. So
walang presumption ng malice. Kung meron mang malice, it is the public official who will prove that you did it out of
bad faith and there is malice. Hindi ikaw ang magpapatunay na you did it in good faith.


Private—(Private)—Private: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

Private—(Private)—Public: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

Press—(Private)—Public: Apply GAG Law because the statement is about the private life of a person.

In all the foregoing cases malice is presumed because it is about the private life of a person.

Private—Public—Private/Public, the private person who does not even possess a duty to make an information public
must prove he did it out of good faith. The one accusing libel is not the proper party to prove that you did it out of bad
faith. Kasi nga hindi niya naman talaga trabaho yun e.

Press—Public—Private/Public, the presumption is that the press member did it out of good faith because it his job or
duty to report. The one accusing libel should prove the member of the press did it out of bad faith.

Public official, personage, figure, pagka public ang interest walang libel. Kapag private interest merong libel kasi
private life. Kapag press—public—public walang libel because it involves a public official regarding his official public
function and the one who is making the publication or reporting has the duty to do so. The public official accused of a
wrong doing must prove bad faith on the part of the member of the press to prove a case of libel. The presumption kasi
ay walang malice. Kung hindi mapatunayan, walang libel, whether true or false ang inulat ng press. Why? Kasi hindi
naman pwede ma-guarantee lahat ng oras ang truthfulness ng isang report. Pag ni-require ang press lahat ng sasabihin
ay totoo, wala nang magrereport dahil sa takot na maparusahan. Paano kung reliable source but it turned out not to be
true tapos kakasuhan mo siya. Wala nang magrereport. The public will suffer ultimately dahil hindi na sila mabibigyan
ng chance na ma-inform.

So, lahat ng klase ng speeches and expression ay covered ng protection. These are all protected speeches. Pero may
mga unprotected speeches like those that are alarming and scandalous—alarm and scandal. Sabi nga ni Thomas
Jefferson you do not have the right to shout fire inside a movie house. Ibig lang niya sabihin ay hindi porket may free
speech ka pwede ka magsalita ng kahit ano anytime and anywhere. Hindi absolute. Pero syempre fundamental right ito
e. One of the highest in the hierarchy lalo kung may clear and present danger. Another example is inciting to sedition
or rebellion. Pero bago mo malaman kung ano ito dapat alam mo kung ano ang sedition or rebellion. It is a crime, an act
to overthrow a government through violence or force—the means of which na hindi maganda. Now you don’t have to
wait for the actual rebellion or sedition to happen by the time na mangyari yun wala ng gobyerno na magpo-protekta sa
iyo. Kaya ang inciting palang ay crime na. Halimbawa, na isang crowd or assembly ka syempre mainit ang ulo ng tao.
Sugod tayo sa Palasyo putulin ang ulo ng Presidente. This is inciting to sedition kahit sumugod sila o hindi. There is a
pent up of emotion being in a rally tapos public official ka pa. Meaning capable ka of inciting. Kasi kung ang
magsasabi nito ay taong grasa, hindi siya paniniwalaan at hindi niya mapapasunod ang tao. Take note walang inciting to
commit rape. Another is libel, defamation, hate or curse words, fighting words. Hindi porke pinupuri hindi libel yun. Uy
beautiful eyes ka e duling. Galing mo rumampa e pilay. Praise undeserved is libel in disguise. Hindi porke nagmumura
libel na. “Putang ina” Puta ang ina—may imputation of a wrong. Malicious ba? Depende sa sitwasyon. Parang sa mga
nakatambay sa kanto murahan nang murahan pero hindi naman nag-aaway.

An affront on the Constitutional guarantee on a person’s right to free speech:

 Prior restraint – an official government restriction on the ? ? ? CHECK YOUR BOOK ! ! !

This is not absolute. May limitation. Doon sa Luneta hostage taking incident dapat nagkaroon ng news blackout. Yung
hostage taker may tv sa loob ng bus at nakikita niya ang bawat report ng media sa labas. Nakita niya ang kapatid niya
kinakaladkad ng pulis. Nabwisit. Kaya pinatay ang mga hostages. A prior restraint in this case is justified dahil
merong clear and present danger.

Ganun din ang isang grupo ng media practitioners na inimbitahan sa pamamagitan ng isang liham ng isang heneral na
sundalo sa isang military camp para sa isang palitan ng political views and opinion. Imbes na paunlakan ang paanyaya
nagsampa ng petisyon sa High Court ang nasabing grupo on the ground that the actuation and conduct of the army
general is in the nature of a prior restraint. Sagot ng army general hindi pa ripe for a controversy ang petisyon dahil
invitation pa lang naman at wala pa siyang ginagawa. Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction for a judicial
review of the petition. The Court however says it can take cognizance of and has jurisdiction over the case on the
ground of transcendental importance because it involves curtailment of a fundamental right—freedom of speech.
Sagot ng militar wala namang prior restraint that could create a chilling effect kasi invitation lang naman. Pwede
silang pumunta o hindi. Invitation man pero how can one refuse an invitation from a military general at a military camp
no less. The High Court ruled that the invitation is a form of prior restraint which creates a chilling effect. Last, the
Court acquired jurisdiction to prevent the same incident from being repeated in the future, and to guide the member of
the bench and the bar.

Minsan ang nangyayari sa freedom of speech nakakabangga ang right to privacy ng isang tao. Dito merong balancing
of interest: Lagunzad vs. Gonzales. Ginawan ng libro ang buhay ni Moises Padilla base sa kanyang public life. Later
may isang producer binili ang copyright ng libro para gawing pelikula. Imbes na puro patayan ginawa ng director
naglagay ng konting romance sa pagitan ni Moises Padilla at ng kanyang tiyahin para hindi naman boring. Napanood ng
pamilya ni Moises at sinabi na paglabag ito sa kanilang right to privacy. Sabi ng producers kung sila naman ang
pipigilan sa pagpapalabas ito ay curtailment ng kanilang right to freedom of expression. The petitioner argued he
already purchased the right to the book. The family (heirs) of Moises Padilla claims that their prior consent to portray
publicly episodes of the life of the deceased, his mother and other relatives was not sought by the petitioner. The right to
protect the memory of the dead is also for the benefit of the living. Sabi ng petitioner, Padilla is a public figure the fact
that no one has the property right over the life of Moises Padilla. The SC says being a public figure does not ipso facto
destroy in toto a person’s right to privacy. A little romance was even included in the film which was not based on real
life. Petitioner maintains that it violates his right to free speech and expression. The SC reminds the petitioner that this
right is not absolute and has limitation especially when there is presence of a clear and present danger, or, in this case,
balancing of interest: right to privacy on the one hand, and right to free speech and expression on the other. Under
the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the balancing tilts to the right of privacy.

Compared this to Ayer Productions vs. Judge Capulong. Nagkaroon ng People Power and an Australian film outfit
wants to produce a film on the subject. Prior consent of the main personalities was sought. Enrile declined for personal
reasons. The film outfit proceeded with the filming minus Enrile. Learning that the film proceeded Enrile petitioned the
court to order the respondent to cease, stop and desist filming of A Dangerous Life. It violates his right to privacy. The
outfit argued that stopping them would curtail their freedom of speech and expression. The High Court ruled in favor of
freedom of speech and expression. Enrile cited the Lagunzad case. The High Court explains that right to privacy is not
absolute; it has limitations. A limitation is permissible if the person is a public figure and the information sought
about him or sought to be published about him constitute matters of public concern. People Power Edsa
Revolution is not only a matter of national concern but of international concern. Enrile is a person who by his
accomplishment, fame, lifestyle, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his
doings, affairs, and character has become a public personage or a celebrity. The Court adds the following differences
between the Lagunzad case and Enrile’s:

 In Lagunzad there was no prior restraint. In fact kaya nga nalaman ng pamilya dahil napanood nila ang pelikula. Sa
kaso ni Enrile hindi pa ginagawa ang pelikula pinatitigil na. Nag-file na agad ng TRO si Enrile.

Another limitation in the freedom of speech and expression is it is limited to the fair administration of justice. Kaya nga
ba pag may pending case we cannot publicly discuss the merits of the case otherwise that is sub judice and will be cited
by the court in contempt. Bakit bawal ang discussion on the merits of the case? Baka ma-influence ang court in making
the decision. Meron isang kaso nagdecide ang court in favor of A vs. B. B is a group of farmers. Luis Taruc the founder
of Hukbalahap which later became a rebel group, wrote a letter to the secretary of justice asking bakit mali ang desisyon
ng court. The court involved cited him in contempt dahil may subjudice. Sabi ng High Court the subjudice rule is not
applicable because the case has become final. The judge is not exempt from public criticism. Tapos na nga e paano pa
maimpluwensyahan ang kaso?

Noong panahon ni Cory Aquino nagkaroon ng kudeta. First time na magkaroon tayo ng commander-in-chief na babae.
At the height of the kudeta Cory did not appear in public as advised by his advisers. Louie Beltran wrote in his weekly
column and accused the President of hiding under her bed at the height of the coup. Cory denied it. Mr. Beltran said it
was only a figure of speech. Cory would have let the accusation pass on the ground of their friendship but to avoid
demoralization of the military Cory filed libel case against Louie Beltran who argues that he only exercised his right to
free press. Mr. Beltran was acquitted but did not live to witness it.

Raul Gonzales was the SOJ of Gloria Arroyo while Narvasa was a Justice of the High Court. Gonzales a former head of
the now defunct Tanodbayan, Ombudsman at present, revealed an expose(i) that the Office of the Tanodbayan has been
receiving letters from the Justices of the High Court asking for accommodation and requests for assistance in favor of
friends and associates, most of which are from Justice Narvasa or the famous “Dear Raul” letters. With the aid and
consent of Raul the Philippine Inquirer published these letters. Gonzales was told by the High Court to stop what he is
doing and the Court will conduct an internal investigation. But Gonzales did not heed so he was cited in contempt. The
only case decided by the High Court that did not discussed the facts but only disposed of a decision. The purpose is to
avoid erosion of the public’s trust in the High Court. Gonzales was disbarred. His license was later restored when he
was appointed as SOJ of Gloria. So for the fair administration of justice the right to free press is limited.

Nestle(i) corporation has a long history of labor strikes in the Philippines. In one case while awaiting a decision of the
High Court the people rallied along Taft Avenue in front of the High Court office. The loud noise created prevented the
Court from performing its duties. Later the Court issued a circular appointing a distance between the protesters who
want to express their right to speech and expression and any judicial boards all over the country to enable the courts to
perform their function in ensuring a fair administration of justice.

Another unprotected speech is obscenity. In the US porn is not prohibited except to minors. Porke ba nakahubo o
nakahubad obscene na? Si Venus de Milo nakahubo. UP Oblation din. Sa anatomy books puro nakahubo at hubad.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—motto ito ng mga pangit. So ano ang standard? Standard of the Pope (popish)?
Pimp (laswa)? Dapat may common standard—Average Person Test. Who is he? Looking at literature or film whether
obscene or not un average person kung para kanino available yun material. Kaya mahalaga ang oras ng pagtatanghal o
pagpapalabas. Saan ipapalabas? Sino mga manonood? Kung ang palabas mo sa television ay religious—Ang Dating
Daan, tapos nagagalit ka sa Tamang Daan. Biglang nagsalita si Eli Soriano at sabihan si Michael ng INC: “Daig pa ang
putang babae.” MTRCB suspended the airing of the program at kinasuhan si Eli. He answered that it was only a figure
of speech. Maaari nga. Pero nasa primetime slot na kung saan maraming nanonood na kabataan na hindi alam kung alin
ang figure of speech sa hindi. Isa pa, it is a religious program kaya maraming nanonood. Therefore, the Average Test
standard shall be of a child because a child is most probably watching the program. And in the average standard of a
child what could be a “figure of speech” for Eli Soriano is obscene for a child.

May literature na obscene, hindi sine-censor ang buong literature kundi ang mga particular passages and the rest iiwan.
Lalo kung isolated part lang naman. In relation to films, parts thereof that are obscene do not constitute banning the
entire film. Only those parts that are obscene that are deleted. This is Isolated Passage Test of obscenity means only
particular passages are restrained. But this was changed in the light of US vs. Roth. If the dominant theme of the
literature or film has a social redeeming value even if there are isolated passage/s of nudity or obscenity the entire film
or literature is not obscene based on the dominant theme which has a social redeeming value. Dominant Theme Test or
Social Redeeming Value Test. These tests are pronounced in the Roth Doctrine.

Although there is a certain social redeeming value but the dominant theme of the film or literature only caters to the
prurient interest (makamundong pagnanasa) then it is obscene. Doon titingnan sa dominant theme.

Schindler’s List, a 1993 American epic historical period drama film, directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg.
Merong ayaw na eksena ang MTRCB un pumping scene between a soldier and his wife. Ramos reversed the decision of
the MTRCB. Had it reached the SC the dominant theme test would have been applied.

On the other hand, when the dominant theme of a one-hour film shows for a full 50 minutes raping and pure sexual
adventures with only 10 minutes devoted to impart to the audience that crime does not pay, although there is presence
of a social redeeming value but the dominant theme (raping and pure sexual adventures) caters to the prurient interest
then it is obscene.

A photographer takes pictures of female natives of the Mountain Province exposing their breasts. Community
Standard Test is applied. Under this test the culture, belief and values of a community shall be taken into account.

Bakit ang isang pelikula pinayagan maipalabas sa France pero dito sa Pilipinas hindi? Examine on a larger view the
culture and values of the French and the Filipinos then compare. It could be the reason based on the National Standard
Sabi naman ng US napakalaki nito para magkaroon ng one national character. May area na napaka-loose like Las
Vegas, there are conservatives. Dapat doon sa community lang. Sino sa community ang daming tao dun? Only the
aggregate community using the Aggregate Community Standard Test.

Dati walang Board of Censors for tv and film dahil wala pang naimbentong television at film. Then came film or
motion picture with no sound. Films are exhibited without cuts on the first day of showing. In the event there are
obscene parts they are cut. Wala nga namang prior restraint pero may isolated passage because they are obscene and
obscenity is an unprotected speech. Kaya lang ang problema lalo sa mga Pilipino sa sitwasyong ganito maparusahan
man ang director, producer at lahat-lahat na, hindi na maiaalis sa isip ng tao na nakapanood ng obscene na pelikula. So
merong clear and present danger sa public morals. Kaya pinayagan ang Board of Censors but with conditions
because it is a form of restraint na kahit ano na lang ang tatanggalin.

 Burden of proof is on the State not on anyone else;

 Decision of the Board is appealable to the regular courts.

Ngayon noong panahon ni Marcos ang tawag ay Board of Censors. When martial law was declared censorship is an
anathema (vehement dislike) to a democratic order. To remove the stigma of censorship Board of Review for
Motion Pictures and Television chaired by Maria Kalaw Katigbak. Later it was changed to MTRCB by virtue of
PD 1986. Classify kung “G”, “PG”, “PG-13”, “PG-17”, etc. at pwede sila mag-cut. Kasagsagan ng martial law some
distinguished film and tv heavyweights criticized MTRCB for its imprudent judgments. A film by Lino Brocka “Kapit
Sa Patalim” was given the “X” rating. Questioned it before the MTRCB on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The High Court ruled that indeed there was abuse of discretion but such was not grave. The Roth Doctrine was
applied. Later what was sought by the film community is self-censorship. During the time of President Estrada,
Chairperson Armida Siguion Reyna made it a policy not to cut but only review and classify although PD 1986 they are
allowed to cut. Submit for review and classification to the MTRCB, if marked X the film will not be shown. In order to
reverse the decision the producer and director, based on the review and recommendation of the Board, will do the taking
out of scenes restrained for exhibition for being obscene. If the classification is changed to one degree lower and the
producer and director appeals for an improved rating, again, based on the review and recommendation of the Board,
they will have to do the taking out of scenes themselves. So forth and so on. Take note that even titles of films as well
as advertisements fall under the jurisdiction and control of the MTRCB: “Patikim Ng P Nya.”, “Mano Nyo Pa”.
Under the rules and guidelines of the Board kahit na ang title ay hindi literal na masama pero kung ang tunog o pag-
conjugate ng words or dialects, foreign or local, at may ibang dating, obscene yun. Ang classification ay depende sa
committee na nagpapasya. Ano ang standard? Walang malinaw na standard to guide the film producers and directors
lalo kapag gawa na ang film. It is tantamount to curtailment of their right to free expression. Ngayon meron na.

Least restricted ang print media: dyaryo, libro. Hindi kasi agad available ang ganitong materials sa publiko. Bibili ka
pa at babasahin mo pa. Iintindihin mo pa.

Sa film kahit hinango sa libro mabilis ang transmission ng mensahe sa audience. Mas mabilis kasi passive kaya mas
restricted kaysa sa print.

Pero mas restricted ang television dahil mas mabilis ang access. Buksan lang ang television okay na. Considered ang
day and time kaya mas restricted kaysa sa film.

Pero mas restricted ang radio kaysa sa television depende sa day and time. Sa tv magbubukas ka pa. Sa radio kahit
hindi ikaw ang magbukas o ibang tao kahit saang lugar maririnig mo na agad ang broadcast. It is more pervasive than

Ang pinaka-restricted ay live shows dahil hindi madadaya tulad ng frontal nudity o anumang sexual adventure unlike
sa film. People vs. Padan Y Alova.

Because of the speed of technology obscene videos that are being viewed online become uncontrollable. The questions
are: who will regulate? How will you regulate?

In the case of St. Therese College. Yun batang estudyante nag-post ng medyo sexually provocative photos. She shared
them in public. STC took disciplinary actions on the student. The girl in turn counter-filed an action. The SC ruled that
since her social networking account was not placed in private settings she cannot a have a reasonable expectation of
Kasama sa right to freedom of speech, expression and press ay ang right to peaceably assemble. What is protected by
the Constitution is a peaceful assembly. Contrary wise the Constitution’s protection is wanting. Kung gusto mong
magkaroon ng assembly hindi mo kailangan ng permit from the government. To assemble is a fundamental right. You
do not ask a permission from government to talk or to associate as part of your humanity. But why is permit necessary
prior to holding a rally? It is to advice the government of a rally so it can take the necessary precaution to prevent any
untoward incident. Moreover it is not for the exercise of the right but in order for the usage of the place fair. Dahil
hindi naman private ang kalsada. Baka magsalpukan ang pro and anti rallyists kaya dapat may schedule din at may
specific na lugar, at ang purpose is not contrary to law. In the event a permit is denied, kailangan: First, i-inform
ang applicant agad-agad so that they can seek judicial recourse. Second, kailangan ang reason for the denial ay
merong clear and present danger and the burden to show it is on the government and not on the applicant. In JBL
Reyes case he led a rally of protesters but was denied prior permit by the local government of Manila, Mayor Bagatsing
at that time. The denial was on the reason that there is clear and present danger based on a repoort. The High Court
ruled that the city government of Manila must prove that there was indeed such serious contingency that existed based
on a report. But such report was not submitted.

A rally or assembly in front of the US Embassy is prohibited within 500 meters pursuant to the Geneva Convention.
The High Court ruled that no proof was shown that the rally held was within the prohibited 500 meters. Second,
assuming it is, it should still be tested against the clear and present danger test, a Constitutional doctrine higher than
any Convention. Pero actually wala namang conflict sa pagitan ng international law and constitutional law because sa
international law on civil and political rights and the universal declaration of human rights because these laws protect
these rights against State intervention. Ngayon there is BP 880 or the Public Assembly Act a rally held in a private
place no permit is required from the government except from the owner of the private property. Unless the owner
himself is part of the rally. No permit likewise is required in compounds of state universities and colleges, subject to
the reasonable rules and regulations of the school. If a rally is held in a Freedom Park. Under RA 7160 every LGU
must designate a freedom park where people can stage a rally without a permit: Luneta, Sunken Garden, QC Memorial
Circle and Plaza Miranda are examples of freedom parks. In David vs. Arroyo the SC says if LGUs do not designate a
freedom park then all open spaces and areas in the city are freedom parks. Nag-rally sa plaza ang isang religious sect,
hindi binigyan ng permit ng mayor dahil isasagawa sa harap ng simbahan ng kalabang relihiyon. The mayor should
assign an alternative location. The location should be capable of being seen in full public view. Huwag naman yun lugar
na walang dumadaan dahil walang makikinig sa mga protesters.

Former Senator Butz Aquino led a rally to Malakanyang. They were stalled by police officers. Since a church was near
the Palace Butz and company argued that they were really going to St. Jude to hear mass. The police likewise prevented
them. Butz petitioned the High Court alleging that the government violated their right to freedom of expression, speech
and religion. The High Court ruled that even assuming for argument’s sake that the rallyists were going to hear mass but
Malakanyang is the seat of government the location of which is adjacent to St. Jude, shouting protests against the
government. What the police did was a valid restriction of their rights.

Students of Gregorio Araneta Colleges Foundation protested the tuition fee increases the school imposed. A permit
was issued which stated that the rally shall be for two hours and shall be limited to the gymnasium of the school. At
the end of the allotted time the protesters moved about shouting and blowing horns which caused a terrible disruption of
class sessions and lectures. The students were penalized by the school with expulsion. Sabi ng Court, may duty ang
school to impose reasonable rules and regulations therefore valid ang exercise. Ang hindi valid ay ang penalty
imposed. Not commensurate to the offense because they were exercising a constitutional right. Of course it may be
limited pero napakabigat ng penalty of expulsion. The school later decided to lift the order and the students were just
disallowed to enrol for the next semester because their contract has ended. Given the change in policy, the Court ruled
that the contract of a student with a school is no longer per semester but until he graduates therefrom.

Isang student hindi pa natatapos ang course hindi na pwede mag-enroll sa school. He argues that his contract is until his
graduation. The reason is not based on his political ideology but on his poor academic performance. Such rules and
regulations are reasonable and are within the prerogative of the school administration to pursue.

Public school teachers held a rally. They were disciplined by the DepEd. The discipline was appropriate because there
was stoppage of work in government being public employees and their not allowed to hold a rally which is equivalent to
a strike in the private sector.
Anti-Cybercrime Act. Here, what were declared as constitutional and valid is the regulation of acts in violation of
the use of the internet, aiding and abetting the commission of cybercrimes like:

 illegal access;

 illegal interference,

 illegal data interference,

 misuse of devices,

 cybersquatting,

 computer-related forgery,

 computer-related fraud,

 computer-related theft.

Declared unconstitutional:

 aiding and abetting in the commission of cybercrime for commercial communication or advertisement through the
use of the internet or “spam”.

Bakit ipagbabawal yun e wala pang computer ginagawa na ang pagbibigay ng flyers for commercial purposes. Pwede
namang i-block yun kung ayaw ng recipient yun. Paano kung gusto pala, na-deprive pa siya ng information.

Child Pornography Act. Aiding and abetting the commission of libel. Kunwari sinabi mo ang kaklase mo ay lahi ng
mga walang hiya. Libelous ito. Worse nilagay mo pa sa internet. At ang mga friends mo naman nag-Like or nag-
Retweet. Hindi abetting or aiding ang pag-Like. Ano ba ang nila-Like? Minsan kahit ano ang ilagay sa FB basta
gustong i-Like pwede. Iba kapag comment: “tama yan!” “Ako rin niloko niyan.” Another libel na ito.

 Fear of subsequent punishment

This is also not absolute and has a limitation. Inciting to sedition, libel may punishment ito.

May rally. Ginigiba ng mga raliyista ang barikada. Dapat bang patulan at saktan ng mga pulis kahit maiinit na ang ulo
ng mga nagrarally at ginigiba na ang mga kagamitan? The policy of the police is maximum tolerance. Mabigat ang
kanilang tungkulin bilang agents ng Estado. At kung wala man silang permit, tama ba na pukpukin sila sa ulo? Hindi pa
November 13, 2016

Levels of Scrutiny on the Limitation to Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press and Religion: Escritor vs. Estrada:
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: Compelling State Interest and the Least Intrusive.

Freedom of Speech and Expression may tinatawag na content neutral at content base. Parehong subject to limitation.
Pag may limitation sa freedom of speech, expression, press, and religion, pag may classification based on sex, race, age,
or highly suspect classification ang ina-apply na level of scrutiny strict judicial scrutiny, dapat may compelling state
interest and it must be the least intrusive. Mas mababa nang konti dito ay ang Rational Basis Test or Reasonable
Connection Test. Here, usually ginagamit ito sa rights to property tulad ng right to engage in lawful business,
profession, vocation. Distinguish niyo ang right, liberty and property rights. Pag property lang rational basis test ang
gagamitin. May logical connection between the purpose of the law and the means employed. Ang purpose of the law ay:
may legitimate state interest: public health, moral, safety, welfare, comfort and convenience and policy. Pagpasok dito
legitimate ang interest. Pag aesthetic reason lang, walang legitimate state interest. Ginagamit ang test na ito sa right to
property or a classification based on property like economic legislation: Subic loob may tax break; sa labas, wala.
Anong basis ng classification? The aforementioned test. May substantial distinction kasi to speed up the conversion of
the free port, Subic and Clark. Noong umalis ang mga kano. Pero pag based sa Highly Suspect Classification: race,
age, sex, religion—Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test. Meron sa gitna or may in-between: Middle Tier or Intermediate
Scrutiny Test. Here, hindi lang legitimate interest kundi pati important state interest. Rational or reasonable or logical
connection, dapat substantial connection sa intermediate. Sa strict judicial, hindi lang legitimate at important state
interest, kailangan compelling state interest. Like the fundamental rights: speech, expression, press and religion.
Classification: highly suspect: sex, race and age. Rational basis kailangan may legitimate state interest; Intermediate
important, strict judicial, compelling state interest. Sa strict judicial, hindi lang basta reasonable o substantial
connection, it must be the least restrictive means of regulating. So kung may other less restrictive means, yun ang

Example, Escritor vs. Estrada, religion, merong isang public official. Abandoned by her husband for a long period of
time. Napamahal siya sa isang tao na pareho niya ng religion Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to their doctrine ang
pagsasama nila ay binabasbasan sila ng kanilang relihiyon o merong declaration of pledge and faithfulness. Tinanggal
siya under Administrative Code na ground for termination which is immorality of a public officer. Is the provision
under said law meron bang State interest dito? Meron. Public Morals. Kaya lang dahil religion ang involved apply mo
ang Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test. Meron bang compelling state interest na kung siya ay makikisama sa lalaking hindi
niya asawa, magkakaroon ba ng widespread immorality, o kung meron nga at ang regulation ay tatanggalin siya sa
work, ito ba ang least restrictive means? Mabigat ito. Baka meron pang less restrictive means. Dahil meron nga na
compelling state interest: public morals pero religion ang usapin at tatanggalin siya sa trabaho, baka naman pwede
silang bigyan ng benevolent accommodation. At ang batas muna ay benevolent neutrality or tabla-tabla muna tayo.

Balik sa Freedom of Speech, pagka may regulation dito at sa press and religion, ang presumption agad (walang isip-
isip) invalid ang regulation for impinging fundamental rights. So gagamitin mo yun Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test pagka
may batas restricting fundamental rights it carries a heavy burden of proving that there is a compelling state interest
which rests in the government. It is the least restrictive. You have to distinguish here content base and content neutral
regulation on the freedom of speech. Pareho pwedeng i-limit. Kaya lang pag sinabing content based ang ni-reregulate
mismo ay ang speech itself un gustong sabihin the expression itself. Wag kang magmumura! Wag kang aatake ng
relihiyon! Content-based yan. Wag kang magkakaroon ng malicious content of a wrong. Walang inciting to sedition.
Pag content neutral apektado ang freedom of speech and expression but the regulation is not on the speech but on the
means and the manner and the method used or employed. Like the billboards in Edsa may expression and speech. May
regulation to remove them sa major highways kasi pag may bagyo baka liparin at tamaan ang mga sasakyan at
pedestrians. Content-based? No. Lahat damay dito although affected ang may-ari. Department of Health promotes
breastfeeding because is not substitute to breastmilk. Ang daming lumalabas na milk substitute. Pinalalagay sa bote o
container ng mga ito ang label na “there is not substitute to breastmilk”. Valid regulation ba ito? Yes. Hindi nga
involved ang free speech dito. Right to property lang dahil business lang ito. Nire-regulate at nilalagay lang hindi
sinabing wag kayong bumili ng product. Choice na lang ng consumer kung gusto pa niya. Kasi yun iba ayaw talaga ng
breastmilk. Read the Milk Law. Given the power to the DOH to promote breastmilk. Umabuso ang DOH nang naglabas
ng another regulation bawal na talaga magbenta ng milk substitute. Bakit pagbabawal kung wala namang masama?
Violation ito ng right to property. Gamitin ang reasonable connection or rational basis test. Pag free speech kunwari
noong unang panahon dumadami ang mga Chinese sa Pinas at ang negosyo nila laundry shop. Ngayon pinapalagyan ng
regulation kung ano ang dapat na proper care for laundry. Hindi pala dapat initin o i-press. Pero nakasulat sa Chinese
kasi mostly customer nila Chinese. Pero dapat may translation sa Filipino or English. Valid ba ito? Yes. Public welfare.
Pero pag content-neutral it is not directed to the speech itself but to the means employed. Do not use strict judicial
scrutiny test! Kasi hindi naman sa speech naka-direkta although speech din siya pero apektado din. Pero it is content-
neutral. Hindi mo rin gagamitin ang rational basis test dahil kahit paano speech and expression pa rin at hindi property
right. Gagamitin mo intermediate scrutiny test. Kapag content neutral regulation subject to intermediate review; content
based regulation use strict judicial scrutiny which bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the
clear and present danger rule. Pinahirap ito ng Supreme Court. Ang simple lang ng formula ko diyan.

Kunwari content neutral, ang Comelec merong power to ensure free, honest, orderly and fair elections. Para maging fair
ang elections sila ang magdidistribute ng print ads for candidates. SC says no taking of property in police power,
eminent domain. Hindi rin pwede dahil walang payment of just compensation. Pero sa broadcast media pwedeng kunin
ang airtime ng walang bayad kasi privilege lang naman ang franchise unlike sa newspaper they own the paper, sa
broadcast media you do not own the airwaves—substantial disctinction. But it is regulated by the government. In fact
before you can operate a broadcast media you have to get a legislative franchise from Congress and under the same that
during election period you must devote certain time of your airtime to Comelec. And Comelec will distribute the same.
So in line with this Fair Election Act the poll body sila ang nagsasabi kung saan lang pwede maglagay ng poster. At
kung ano ang sukat ng mga ito, magkano lang pwedeng gastusin. Kunwari ang mga campaign materials ng isang
kandidato nilagay mo sa sticker at binigay mo sa mga friends mo at dinikit sa mga kotse nila. Subject to regulation ba
ito ng Comelec? NO. The car is private property of the owner. Pwede niya idikit kahit ano. Ang Comelec ay kung saan
pwede ilagay: bawal sa puno imbes mamunga ng prutas mukha ng kandidato ang nandun. Yun size naman para pantay
at parehas. Ang napakalaking tarpaulin bawal ba? Depende. Depende din kasi kung saan ilalagay. Incomplete ang
regulation e. Kung napakalayo sa public e dapat malaki para makita otherwise parang langgam na lang sa liit. A
regulation on the size of the material without any provision as to the distance is arbitrary.

Tarpaulin nakalagay Team Patay at Team Buhay. Pinagbawal ng Comelec: una raw ang laki ng size, pangalawa,
partisan. SC ruled una, sa size okay pero walang sinabi as to the distance; second, hindi naman kandidato ang simbahan;
third, wala namang sinasabing kung sino ang dapat iboto particularly; fourth, bahagi ng freedom of speech and
expression; fifth, bahagi ng freedom of religion. Kung ano conviction bayaan lang. What test should be used? Rational
basis dahil property right; strict judicial dahil religion at speech. Kahit ano pang gamitin na test invalid pa rin ang
regulation. Walang guidelines as to the distance, etc. Rational basis pa lang bagsak na. At ang may burden of proof dito
ay ang State.

Benevolent Neutrality – recognizes that government must pursue a secular goal and interest. Dapat hindi religious.
Examples are public safety, health and morals. Hindi lang secular or legitimate state interest but at the same time it
strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible. Ito na yung benevolent accommodation in Estrada vs.
Escritor. Merong legitimate state interest pero it also allows with great flexibility the exercise of religious liberty within
flexible constitutional limits. Ginamit ito Estrada vs. Escritor.

Freedom of Religion

No law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof shall be passed. This is in line with the principle
of separation of church and State. Again, ang inuutusan dito ay ang legislative department at quasi-legislative bodies.
This is also called as the Non-Establishment Clause; or prohiting the free exercise of religion or the Free Exercise of
Religion Clause. So walang batas ang magbabawal sa free exercise of religion maging sa pagtatatag ng particular na

Two aspects of freedom of religion: the right to believe and the right to act in accordance with such belief.

The right to believe is absolute. You may believe in anything you want. But when your belief is translated into action
and the same affects health, safety, morals, etc., it may be, just like any other right, limited by the State to promote and
protect health, safety, morals, etc. However even if this can be limited, it can only be limited applying (because this is
religion) the Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test. And when you apply this test the regulation of the law carries a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality and the State has the burden to show that there is a compelling state interest. Within
the guideline of a clear and present danger rule of a substantive evil which the State must prevent because it has a
compelling state interest and it must be the least restrictive. So kahit may compelling state interest pero hindi least
restrictive violation pa rin yun. These two should go together. Ito naman ay religion at dahil sa kanilang paniwala ay
ganun baka naman pwede allow certain benevolent neutrality by adjusting or making flexible the constitutional

Non-Establishment Clause – the State shall have no official religion. There should be no one religion. Otherwise there
will be persecution of those who do not belong to such religion. Kung lahat naman ng religion ay state religion, hindi
rin pwede. May kanya-kanyang paniniwala at pananampalataya. At kung nag-aaway ang dalawang religion based on
dogma, doctrine and belief of their organization, membership, pabayaan lang sila. Dahil kapag nakialam ang State
magkaroon pa ng civil war. The State should not interfere, favor one religion over another religion. Pero take note,
kapag umakto ang mga believers ng mga religion to the point na nakakaapekto na sila sa karapatan ng iba, the State
may interfere and limit the exercise of their right to believe.

Principle of the Separation of Church and State: That the State should not prohibit the free exercise of religion or
establish one state religion and favor one religion over another religion. Merong mga provisions sa Constitution which
allow the State to a certain extent advances or inhibits certain religion. Because of a state interest. Example, exempted
ang mga religious institutions sa pagbabayad ng real property tax at ang dahilan ay kasi pag nagbabayad sila ng tax
sasabihin nila bakit hindi sila pwede makialam e nagbabayad sila ng tax. Hindi naman sila pwede bawalan kasi citizens
din sila. So the best that the State can do is to discourage them from interfering and the way to do this is to exempt them
from the payment thereof. Ang problema exempt na nga nakikialam pa rin.

Pwede ring magbigay ng free religious instructions sa public school. Notwithstanding the separation of church and
State it does not mean we do not recognize God anymore. It is in fact enshrined in the Constitution in its Preamble.
Provided it is upon the request of the parents and outside school hours. Sa mga military camp pwede namang
kumuha ng mga pari, imam o pastor. Babayaran din of course ng stipend ang mga ito dahil gumastos din sila.
Violation? NO. Una nakalagay naman sa Constitution ang pag-implore ng aid of Almighty God. Pangalawa, ang bayad
sa kanila ay hindi to advance a particular religion. Fairness ang tawag dito dahil nagtrabaho naman e. Merong certain
constitutional at statute provisions which in a way inhibits or favors a religion. But this is merely incidental to its main
purpose which is secular. Pagka gastos ng pera ang State or government and in a way advance a particular religion
hindi automatically violation ng separation of church and State principle kasi meron mga legitimate State interests
which are secular in nature but incidentally favors or inhibits a religion. Halimbawa yun pag-hold ng fiesta sa isang
barrio sa province. Syempre may mga palaro: palo sebo, beauty pageants, boodle fight, etc., meron ding prusisyon.
Pwede bang ipagbawal ang piyesta dahil it advances a particular religion, the Catholic religion, Feast ni San Isidro
Labrador. The High Court ruled a fiesta is not a purely religious activity it is a social activity in order to break the
drudgery of everyday life in the barrio. Para magkaroon ng kasiyahan. At kung merong religious activity doon which
either advances or inhibits a particular religion, it is merely incidental to the secular purpose. Sa bansa kasi konti lang
ang religion-related cases, unang-una tamad magsampa ng kaso. At isa pa halos Christian lahat at Muslim. Unlike in the
US iba-iba ang relihiyon. Holiday pa lang problema na dahil dapat lahat ng religion pagbigyan sa pag-observe ng
kanilang foundation day. Sa US may Education School Board na nagbibigay ng regulation whether public or private
school. In one case sa Arkansas, USA it prohibits the teaching in schools the Darwinian Theory of Evolution na ang
tao ay galing sa unggoy. May isang libro na required sa mga teachers na gamitin sa school. Itong bagong aklat kasama
ang Darwininian Theory of Evolution. They sought declaratory relief. The US SC ruled ang pag prohibit ng
pagtuturo ng nasabing Theory ay pag-establish ng particular religion. Walang masama ituro yun pero wag mo
iprohibit ang pagturo ng ibang pananaw.

Noong una ang mga public schools, okay lang kung private Catholic schools, bago magsimula ang klase nagdadasal
sila: Hail Mary, etc. May nag-question na isang magulang. Did it establish a particular religion because it favors a
particular religion? Nag-compose sila ng ecumenical prayer na sakop lahat ng religion. YES. It still establishes a
particular religion, and despite coming up with a remedy of an ecumenical and collective prayer, there is still violation
of the said Clause because there are those who do not belong to any particular religion. So ginawa nagkaroon na lang ng
moment of silence. Sabi ng SC violation pa rin. Hindi pwede. Bakit silent? Ano ang ginagawa ninyo? You are invoking
a Supreme Being. Kaya sa US pagpasok ng teacher sa classroom lecture agad. Ganun din pag-ring ng school bell alis
agad ng room kahit nagsasalita pa ang teacher. Hindi sila bastos. Male-late kasi sila sa next class.

Dati sa White House noong panahon ni President George Bush maglalagay ng nativity sa South Wing. It was
questioned by Jews because taxpayer’s money will be used to put it up and besides they do not believe in it and belong
to the religion that observes it. Hindi na lang tinuloy.

Sa Amerika din, dati tuwing Pasko ang pagbati ng mga tao sa isa’t-isa ay “Merry Christmas” hanggang merong nag-
question dahil it establishes and promotes a particular religion as not all people believe in the Christ of Christians.
So pinalitan ito ng “Happy Holidays”. Pero ang hirap naman kapag kinanta mo ang Christmas songs at papalitan mo
ng lyrics: “I’m dreaming of a white [happy holidays].” “We wish you a [happy holidays] . . .”

Sa US pa rin, merong isang Christian judge. May nag-petition na alisin sa mga courthouses ang two tablets ng Ten
Commandments. Kahit galit siya dito dahil nga sa Non-Establishment Clause, naalis ang two tablets. To express his
disgust, sabi niya tanggalin na rin ang nakasulat sa salapi nila ang “In God We Trust” at tanggalin na rin ang nakasulat
sa kanilang Constitution ang “Imploring the aid of Divine Providence.” Siya ang tinanggal ng US Supreme Court! Ang
kulit daw e.
Mandatory primary and secondary education. Ayaw ng isang religion, ang Amish religion dahil matututo lamang ang
kanilang mga anak ng mga gawi ng mundo at demonyo. Tutal tinuturuan naming nila ang kanilang mga anak ng 3 Rs:
Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. Kinasuhan sila dahil hindi nila pinadadala sa school. Sabi ng US SC okay lang dahil
tinuturo naman nila ang tinuturo sa iskwelahan. Oo may legitimate state interest (education is a legitimate interest) pero
dapat may compelling reason para limitahan. Dito sa kasong ito hindi naman naaayon sa system ng pagtuturo nila
according to their religion. Bigyan na lang ng Benevolent Accommodation. Pumasok dito ang primary and natural right
and duty in rearing the youth for civic development belong to the parents and shall receive the support of the
government. Primary ang parents at supporting lang ang gobyerno. Sa US, may religion na sine-sex ang mga virgin na
babaeng myembro as part of the religious rituals. Inaalay pa nga mismo ng mga magulang ang mga birhen na anak sa
lider. Nilusob ng agents.

May isang pari na tumakbo na maging council member. May nagprotesta dahil kapag nanalo siya it might advance a
particular religion. On the other hand the priest it will violate his political right as a citizen simply because he is a priest
and would violate his free exercise of religion. This happened under the 1935 Constitution where there were only 11
Justices at that time. Kailangan ng majority vote which is 8. Ang vote was 7—pabor sa pari vs. 4—hindi pabor. Kahit
lamang ang pabor but because of failure to meet the 8 required number, hindi nakatakbo ang pari. But under the present
1987 Constitution nakasaad na dito na “no religious test shall be allowed in the exercise of civil and political
rights.” Last sentence of Section 5.

Namigay ang government ng free books sa isang community. The community is composed mostly of Catholics.
Violation? NO. The legitimate secular purpose is to advance education not a particular religion. The favoring of
students who happen to be members of the Catholic religion is merely incidental to the legislative secular purpose. On
the other hand, take note that it will create an Excessive Entanglement between the church and the State when there is
close monitoring of actions by the State of the actions of the church. Pag merong use of tax or public funds in the
pursuit of a secular purpose, ito ang test if it violates the Free Exercise or the Non-Establishment Clause:

 The law or regulation has a secular legislative purpose

 If there is any favour to a particular religion it is merely incidental to the primary purpose, legislative secular

 The primary purpose must not be primarily to advance or inhibit a religion

 Must have no excessive entanglement between State and religion

Kunwari ang mayor gusto niya puro pag-ibig sa kanyang lungsod. Naglagay ng Madonna and child, o Pietta sa public
park. To judge if it is a violation of the separation of church and state, look, what is the legislative secular purpose?
Does it primarily advance or inhibit a particular religion? Is there an excessive entanglement? Hindi porke donation ng
private people ang pagpapagawa ay hindi na violation. Una, ang paglalagyan ay public place.

Flag Law the purpose is to foster nationalism in every Filipino.

Kaso ng isang batang estudyante sa Amerika na ayaw sumaludo sa bandila dahil ito ay labag sa kaniyang relihiyon. Ano
ang clear and present danger dito? Wala. Binigyan na lang ng benevolent accommodation.

Dito sa Pilipinas, iba ang naging pagtanggap at pagtingin n gating Supreme Court. The flag is not a religious object. Its
purpose is only to foster nationalism there is nothing religious in it. It is true that the right to believe is absolute but to
act in accordance to such belief may be limited by the State. So it can be limited by the State. But later the Supreme
Court changed its mind in the 1995 case of Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent: “Who are we to say that the flag is
not a religious object? For us it is not but for them it is. Who are we to impose upon them our belief? It is true that the
right to act in accordance to such belief may be limited by the State however it can only be done so if there is a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil which the State must prevent. What is the danger if the child does not sing?
Hindi pa nga siya nanggugulo sa ibang tao. Ginaya na rin natin ang US decision. Dapat ang reason mo dito ay religious

May ipinasa na ordinance sa Maynila na babayaran ang license fee sa pagdistribute ng reading materials. American
Bible Society nagbebenta ng bible hinihingan ng tax at license fee ng City of Manila. Violation daw ng freedom of
religion. Because it regulates the free exercise of religion. At also violation ng freedom of speech and expression.
Ang mga religious items ay pinatawan ng VAT sa sales nito. This is valid. Ang VAT ay hindi naman sa privileges. It is
not the belief that is being regulated unlike in the case of the American Bible Society because it is not a regulatory
measure, it is a policy measure—the State has the power to tax.

Ang jurisdiction ng MTRCB: to review and classify movie and television pero sakop na nila ngayon ang guidelines para
sa pag-regulate ng mga commercial ads, mga poster kung bastos o hindi. Pero baka hindi bastos sa ibang dialect pero
pag sa ating lenggwahe bastos pala. Ang commercial speeches hindi kasing category ng religious at political speeches.
Kasi ang purpose ay profit or magbenta. Kaya do not use the Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test. Pero hindi naman siya purely
property kasi speech naman siya. Hindi rin gagamitin ang rational basis. Intermediate lang. May important state interest
ba at may substantial connection?

Inside Story ni Loren Legarda na may mga estudyante ng PWU pagkamalapit na ng exam nagbebenta ng katawan:
Prostituition. Ang problema sa programa ay hindi dumaan sa MTRCB pinalabas na lang. Katwiran niya newsreel ito.
Dalawa lang ang uri ng programs na exempted sa coverage ng MTRCB: government programs and newsreel. Ang
newsreel ay isang straightforward reporting of the news of the actual of facts and events. Kaya sabi ni Loren hindi na
kailangan ipadaan sa MTRCB. Sabi ng SC hindi ito newsreel kasi may mga komentaryo doon at hindi straightforward
ang reporting. Therefore dumaan dapat sa MTRCB. Yun GMA 7 naman naglabas ng dokyu ng Muro Ami featuring
mga bata na sumisisid sa dagat para kumuha ng corals na walang gamit na scuba diving gears. May violation sa
guidelines ng MTRCB. Hindi raw sumunod ang GMA 7. Pero nakalusot dito ang GMA 7 dahil ang nasabing guidelines
hindi naka-publish at hindi binigyan ng kopya ang ONAR or Office of the National Administrative Register located sa
UP Law Center. Yun Laguardia vs. Soriano, mura nang mura si Bro. Eli Soriano. Dito sinuspinde ang programa at si
Eli. Sabi ng SC tama lang ang ginawa with respect sa programa dahil may violation sa classification, primetime, general
patronage. Pero walang kapangyarihan ang MTRCB suspendihin si Eli o ang mga artista kasi wala silang power at
jurisdiction sa mga ito. Dapat ang mag-suspend ang network.

Section 6. 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.

First Sentence: liberty of abode and of changing the same. Si Tommy Manotoc, asawa ni Imee Marcos, may kaso kasi
ang mga Marcoses na plunder-plunder. Si Tommy gustong pumunta ng abroad kaya lang merong hold departure order
laban sa kanya dahil nga sa mga kaso na sinampa laban sa pamilya nila. Kaya lang pansamantala nakalaya siya dahil he
is on bail. Pero ang sabi niya dapat payagan siyang lumabas ng bansa dahil hindi pa siya convicted. It will violate his
right to travel. Kasi sabi “neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety and public health as may be provided by law”. Hindi naman siya national security danger, walang public safety
involved sa pag-alis niya, wala naman syang nakakahawang sakit. Pero sabi “within the the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.” Pwede ba siyang pigilan (hold departure order, prohibition,
travel ban)? Sabi niya ang lawful order of the court nandun sa first right, sa liberty of abode. Ito ay right to travel at
walang lawful order of the court. Dahil ang hold departure order niya ay lawful order of the court. Nag-trace ang SC ng
history. Under the 1935 Constitution: the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired. Hindi sinabi ang right to travel dito expressly kundi implied lang. 1973 Constitution: the liberty
of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful of the court or when necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health. So either right to travel or liberty of abode pwedeng i-limit pareho kung may
lawful order of the court, or kung merong law involving national security, safety or health. 1987 Constitution:
pinaghiwalay ang mga ito, pati ang limitation hiniwalay.

Is the impairment the right to travel limited to national security, public safety or health? NO. It is interpreted to mean
that while the right to travel may be impaired even without court order the appropriate executive offices are not armed
with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits on the basis of national security, public safety or
health and as may be provided by law. This was a reaction to the ban on international travel during the Marcos time.
Kasi noong araw Marcos banned travel unless he authorized the same. The need for travel certificate to be approved by
the President. But this does not mean delimiting the powes of the court to use what is necessary to carry its orders into
effect. Walang sinasabi na ni-limit ang power ng court to impose regulations in order that they can carry out their court
orders under Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

A person who is under bail must make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence. This rule
is a valid restriction on the right to travel. Mali si Manotoc. Because otherwise if the court exercise its jurisdiction if the
person is out of the jurisdiction of the court. He must be present at anytime his presence is needed. Paano ma-serve sa
kanya ang mga orders kung wala siya sa bansa? That is a necessary limitation to the right to travel. When you apply for
bail it carries with it a condition which you must agree with to get a favorable judgment for the bail. Manotoc vs.
Court of Appeals

Noong unang panahon ang akala nakakahawa ang ketong. So ang ginawa ang lahat ng may ketong dinala sa Palawan,
Collon. Doon ang Tala Leprosarium. This was questioned for violation of their liberty of abode and of changing the
same. Sabi ng SC noon, may valid regulation kasi may clear and present danger baka makahawa sila. Now, it was
proven by science and medicine na hindi naman nakakahawa ang ketong.

Ang ginawa ng City of Manila lahat ng mga pokpok or women of ill-repute at dinala sa isang island sama-sama. Sabi ng
SC mali ito. Hindi ito nakakahawa na parang isang sakit.

Second Sentence: the right to travel.

Section 7. 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.

First Sentence: right to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized ay right ng people

Second Sentence: access to official records and to documents and papers are afforded to citizens only. So kung CNN
ka at may kino-cover na news na isang matter of international concern pero wala silang access to official records so
hihingi sila kopya sa isang local agency na siyang may access. A public officer who refuses to perform a function
required by law can be compelled to do so by filing in court a Petition for Mandamus. Pero kahit may right ang citizens
sa official records it shall be subject to limitations provided by law. Pwedeng mag-impose ang batas. Halimbawa,
SALN ng isang senador pumunta ka sa BIR o Senate 3am ng Linggo. Natural limitation ito dahil tulog pa sila at walang
pasok pag Linggo. May mga documents kasi na unclassified or hindi confidential.

Isa pa, yun judge ayaw payagan ang mga empleyado ni mayor to examine the criminal documents sa clerk of court na
may kinalaman sa peace and order sa lugar. Humihingi sila ng criminal records sa judge. Pinapakita naman ni judge.
Kaso ang empleyado gustong ilabas ang document at ibabalik na lang daw. Ipapa-xerox sa labas kaya hindi pinayagan
ni judge. Sabi ng SC un right na yan ay subject to regulations and reasonable rules. Baka pagbalik ng papel maaaring
punit-punit na.

Sa mga regulation dito sa atin ang ownership at management ng mass media is limited to Filipino citizens or to
corporations wholly owned by Filipinos. Bawal ang foreigners or foreign corporation. Mga advertising industry or
agencies 70 per cent of the capital must be owned by Filipinos to engage in the advertising business. Pero kahit
pinapayagan ang mga foreigners sa advertising agencies 30 per cent of the capital stocks, yun executive management
and offices are limited to Filipinos. Bakit? Kasi ang information baka maapektuhan ang bansa natin kung mapupunta sa
hindi Filipinos.

Valmonte vs. Belmonte. May balita itong reporter na si Valmonte na un Batasan Pambansa opposition members ay
nakakuha ng unsecured loans sa GSIS. Walang collateral pero may loan. Kaya nakakuha sila through the help of Imelda
Marcos so ang insinuation ay nilalagyan ni Imelda ang opposition. Ayaw ni SB bigyan ng dokumento ng GSIS kung
sino mga nakatanggap. Petition for Mandamus. Sabi ng SC, magkaiba ang right to information sa freedom of speech
and epression although related. The right to information is an essential premise of the right of free speech and
expression. Paano ka makakapag-express kung hindi ka well-informed. But this is not to say that the right to
information is merely is the same or an adjunct of freedom of speech and expression. This is a separate right. And this is
an important right as a constitutional policy of full disclosure of an honesty in the public service in line with the policy
of Cory Aquino. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision as well as checking
the abuse of the government. Ngayon, ang records ng GSIS is a matter of public concern and public interest lalo na ang
istorya ni Valmonte kung may anomalya nga na nangyayari sa gobyerno. Sabi ni SB, un pera ng GSIS did not come
from public funds but from the contribution of the members. So it is not a public fund and therefore not a matter of
public interest. Ang GSIS ay created ng batas at ginawang compulsory ang contribution ng lahat ng government
employees. Siguro kung wala ang batas hindi sila magko-contribute. Yun pera ng GSIS of course is not a public fund
nor the money of its employees. GSIS holds in trust the money of the employees. Eventhough it is not taxpayers’
money it is imbued with public interest therefore a public concern. Ang sabi dito paano naman ang right to privacy ng
GSIS? Supreme Court says, corporations have no right to privacy only individuals have this right. Pag nagtayo ng
corporation ang daming documentary requirements: names and addresses of incorporators. What is so private about
that? Especially if the corporation is a government-owned or controlled corporation.
Nanghihingi ng civil service eligibility ang isang tao sa CSC dahil ang mga nasabing empleyado ay nagwowork sa
DOH and it concerns health. Ayaw magbigay ng CSC. SC says the CSC can regulate the manner of the examination but
disclosure of the information cannot be discretionary on the part of the CSC thus Mandamus lie. The right to
information is not be absolute but may be subject to limitations. Meron bang karapatan ang kumukuha ng board exam
na malaman niya ang tamang sagot para malaman kung tama ang grade sa kanya. The SC says it is a matter of right to
information. Pero bakit sa bar exam hindi nila ginagawa un. Selective ang SC!

The transfer of a petrochemical plant to Batangas without notice to the opponents of the move. The petitioner here
nanghingi ng photocopy ng document filed by the Bataan petrochemical corporation. The SC says it cannot be denied.
Dapat bigyan.

Section 8. 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.

Right to associate includes the right not to associate. Sabi ng SC noong araw hindi pwedeng magtayo at mag-strike ang
mga nasa public sector. Kasi nga naman magkakaroon ng delay sa delivery of basic services kapag nagwelga sila. Tulad
ng mga pulis, sundalo o bumbero. Sa bagong Constitution at bilang reaction sa martial law ni Marcos pwede na
magtayo ng union ang mga government employees but hindi pa rin sila pwede mag-strike ayon sa SC. Ang problema
hindi makatwiran or arbitrary ang ginawang distinction ng SC, it is not even substantial. Pwede nga magtayo ng union
both the private and public sectors pero ang private sectors lang ang pwede mag-strike. Samantalang identical naman
ang karamihan sa mga services na dinedeliver ng dalawang sectors na ito. Sa hospital, mas maayos ba ang buhay ng
mga pasyente sa public hospital kaya ang private hospitals pwede mag-strike kapag may issues sila? Sa education, mas
maganda ba ang education sa public kaya ang private schools pwede mag-strike kapag may issues sila? Dapat sana ang
distinction ay depende sa nature of work. Halimbawa, sa Bureau of Soils. Kung pag-classify lang ng mga uri ng
buhangin ang trabaho, ano naman sa akin kung mag-strike ang grupo nila? Affected ba ang delivery of basic services?
No. Tingnan ang nature ng work dapat.

Halimbawa ng union ng mga public school teachers: Unyon Ng mga Guro sa Agham at Sining or UNGAS for short.

Civil Rights Act of California (there is a compeeling reason to eliminate discrimination against women) on the Rotary
Club of Califonia vs. Rotary Club International

Three Aspects of Right of Association: (By the way this is Life and Liberty Right) General Right of Liberty (may be
limited by Due Process Clause):

 The right to contract you agree with the terms and conditions of the association (may be limited by property right
using the reasonable connection test or rational basis test);

 Freedom of speech and expression the purpose of which is to advance ones belief and ideas (may be limited by
clear and present danger if there is a compelling state interest).

Any association can be formed as long as they are not contrary to law. It is not the name but the purpose which must be
lawful. Like Akyat Bahay Group na umaakyat sa mga alulod ng bubong para linisin at alisin ang bara; Bukas Kotse
Gang na nagbubukas ng mga kotse para kunin ang mga naiiwang susi.

Eminent Domain there are two negative words. Why not just make the statements positive? This is to state that the
general rule is that the property is not to be taken unless certain requirements are met and the burden to show that the
same are met is on the State: shall be devoted for public use,

What constitutes taking or expropriating of private property in the case of Republic vs. Viuda de Castellvi?

 The expropriator must enter private property

 The entry must not be for a momentary period; a matter of permanence; you take now and return next week.
 The entry must be under warranty of legal authority; there must be a law; eminent power is legislative in character
there must be a law.
 The property must be devoted for public use; otherwise for private use there is violation of deprivation of use of
private property without due process of law.
 Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of the further enjoyment of
the property.
The property is expropriated because the owner thereof does not to sell. Or the owner and the expropriator do not agree
with the price. There is an element of compulsion on the part of the expropriator and the inherent power of eminent
domain is exercised in this case. Without such power there will be no expropriation.

Government functions:

 Public – performing governmental functions or constituent functions like collection of taxes, garbage and
maintenance of peace and order, road construction. An LGU exercising a public function is acting as an agent of
the State as a political subdivision of the State in order to implement the Constitution, statutes, policies, etc. On the
other hand, when an LGU is exercising a private function or proprietary function it acts as an agent of the
inhabitants of the community in order to promote health, order, safety, comfort, etc.

 Private –

An LGU is holding a fiesta it is not performing its public function. It is not created to hold fiestas. Private capacity only
for the inhabitants. But when in the process it collects fees and the proceeds were used to buy a property to build a
school. The property is the property of the municipal corporation or LGU in their private capacity. Since it is the
property of the LGU, although it is a public property, in a sense it is the private property of the LGU or its patrimonial

Property for Public Use under the Civil Code:

 Provincial road
 City and municipal streets (barangay streets are included bec. they are within cities and municipalities, besides
there were no barangays yet at the time of the creation of the Civil Code.)
 Squares (Quezon Memorial Cirle or Ninoy Aquino Triangle are included; it does not refer to geometric figures but
refers to open spaces like plazas)
 Public buildings
 Promenade
 Public fountains

Requirements in the exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain:

 The property expropriated shall be devoted for public use – lumaki na ang meaning nito. Dati public use means that
the public can use. Not necessarily. Property is used to establish a military camp. The public cannot use this as they
please. As long as the public derives some benefit: public welfare, health, comfort, convenience, etc. In fact under
the LGC the LGU can even expropriate properties in order to give land to the landless and home to the homeless or
for urban housing development use. A child kept off the street and inside in school benefits the society even if the
child is not your child or blood relative. Agrarian reform.

 There must be payment of just compensation – the just and equitable equivalent of the loss of the owner of the
thing expropriated which he has suffered by reason of the expropriation. It is everything that the owner suffered out
of the expropriation. Before, the meaning of this is the amount of the property according to the fair market value
prevailing which is the amount which the buyer is willing to buy and the seller might be willing to sell without
either prior act of being compelled to buy or to sell. Walang pwersahan. The amount in the free market based on
the following: size, location, quality of the land (residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural), neighborhood
(mga mukhang natokhang).

Public school tingnan ang halaga per square meter, fair market value kaya lang yun gate nakaharap sa iskinita, may
potential damage as a consequence of the taking, determine din ito at i-add sa FMV. Consequential damage must be
considered. Kaya lang tingnan mo, pag nagtayo ka ng school may captured customers so may benefit as a consequence
of the taking, deduct un consequential benefit.

Just Compensation = FMV + Consequential Damage – Consequential Benefit (if any).

Usually ang cons. Damage and benefit if there is partial expropriation. There is also direct taking and indirect taking.
Eminent domain contemplates direct taking, the property was taken you lost the property, ownership, the use and
enjoyment of the same. There is a law, rent control law, as a lessor hindi pwede magtaas ng rent every year more than
ten percent. Nagcomplain ang apartment owners mababawasan ang kanilang kita dahil limited. Ginawa ang batas na ito
para sa mga mahihirap for public use kaya dapat bayaran sila ng just compensation. There is none here because it was
not an exercise of eminent domain but an exercise of police power, limiting your right to property to promote public
policy which is social justice. There is no taking of the apartment, ang kita mo. Hindi mo lang mataasan ang renta. It
was an indirect taking through the regulation of your right so not entitled for the just compensation. Direct taking, social
citizen’s discount like when buying medicine. Botika nawalan masyado ng kita. It is not eminent domain but police
power exercise. Hindi kinuha ang drugstore o business. Na-limit lang ang pag-impose ng tamang presyo. Nonetheless
they are given tax discount kapag pay your tax pwede i-credit yun mga discount na binigay sa mga senior. Sa mga
bagyo may price control ang gobyerno. Police power ito.

Actual taking – actual taking talagang kinuha ang property.

Constructive taking – may property o lupa may negosyo na poultry sa tabi may idle government land na ginawang
airport naglagay ng runway. The noise it produced namatay ang manok at napeste. Nagcomplain at nagfile ng damage.
Hindi naman kinuha actual ang property nasa iyo pa ang manok. But the US SC says there is taking of property right the
business was lost because of what was done and should be paid just compensation. Thus a constructive taking.

Constructive taking vs. Indirect taking:

Constructive means there is taking of property i.e. your business, whereas Indirect taking means there is not taking of
property per se but only an act of the State limiting or regulating your use of your property as in the case of the Rent
Control Act on the matter of regulating the increase in rental cost; and Senior Citizens Act on matters of giving discount
on purchases of products and services of senior citizens.

Who determines the proper taking based on the conditions in Republic vs. Viuda de Castellvi? The court. There is a law
authorizing the State to expropriate and files a petition with the RTC because it is the court of general jurisdiction
regardless of the amount of the property taken because in expropriation cases the subject matter is not the property or
the amount thereof but whether the exercise of the power is valid or not. It incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Tama ba ang taking? Is it private property? Second duty of the court, how much should be the just compensation.
Congress cannot fix the just compensation into the law neither the executive or the secretary cannot fix the said amount.
It is a judicial function not a legislative or executive because kailangan ng court na tumanggap ng mga ebidensya:
magkano ba yan, ang assessment niyan, gaano kalaki. During Marcos’ time naglabas ng batas nay un property kapag
inexpropriate sa isang tao real property kung magkano ang declared na halaga ng property niya sa tax declaration ng
owner or as determined by the assessor (minsan kasabwat) whichever is lower. Kung ano nakalagay sa tax declaration
that will be the just compensation. Hindi ka makakaangal dahil estopped ka. The SC says the law is unconstitutional
because it is a judicial function not an executive one. The court having no expertise on matters of evaluation and
assessment it will hire 3 commissioners who will determine the issues: to accept evidence from the government and the
owner as to amount of the property. Once determined it will be reported to the judge and the judge will fix the amount
of the just compensation. The judge cannot simply bypass or ignore the report of the commissioners by forthwith fixing
the amount otherwise it violates the right to due notice and hearing of the owners and present evidence therefor, the
right to procedural due process. Ignoring the report is not allowed except if the commissioners applied illegal principles
or the same have disregarded clear rules of evidence or when the amount fixed grossly inadequate or excessive.

File ng petition for expropriation may hearing na matagal na aabot ng taon by the time matapos ang kaso iba na ang
halaga ng lupa. Nag-appreciate na. So magkano ang just compensation? At the time of the filing of the complaint. Kaya
lang minsan, ang gobyerno kinukuha at ginagamit na agad ang property nang hindi pa nagsasampa ng petisyon baka
hindi pa nakikita ang may-ari, after ma-improve lumutang ang owner. So nagsampa ng petition ang gobyerno pero
walang plano ibenta ng may-ari syempre gumanda na ang lugar niya. Pag ganito ang basis ng determination of just
compensation ay at the time of the taking. Lugi kasi ang gobyerno dahil na-improve. Pag nauna ang taking sa filing, at
the time of the taking. Pag nauna ang filing then taking minsan kasi hindi pa tapos ang kaso immediate possession of
the property provided the government files a bond with the court, the determination is at the time of the filing of the
complaint. General rule at the time of the filing of the complaint, except when there is an immediate taking so it should
be at the time of the taking. I mean taking prior to the filing of the complaint.

Determination at the time of the taking or filing whichever is earlier. Para hindi ka mailto.

Pero sa CARL or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law kahit wala pang filing of the complaint the government can
already take possession of the property. Here ang determination ay always at the time of the taking under the law.
Ano ang mode of payment? CASH. Pwedeng cheke pero pay to cash. Mahirap kung bitbit mo ang bulto ng pera. Hindi
pwedeng de-lata, maling, corned beef. Paano kung bayad ay ginto or diamond, pwede? Hindi pwede pa rin. Kasi hindi
mabebenta agad. Dollars? Pwedeg i-convert. Pero kasi pabagu-bago ang exchange rate. Pero bakit sa CARL pumayag
na pwedeng mode of payment ay government bonds and stock certificate, etc.? Dahil sa dami ng ine-expropriate na
private properties ng government wala kaagad itong ready cash. Tulad sa Yolanda, nag-expropriate ang gobyerno ng
mga lupa para sa mga tao. Walang palang pambayad ang gobyerno bakit kumuha ng property? Sa CARL kasi hindi lang
ito Eminent Domain exercise but also a Police Power exercise. Revolutionary measures under the revolutionary powers
of Cory Aquino in order to once and for all free the farmers from the bondage from the soil.

Sa CARL dalawa bagay ito lagi: una, determine ang sakop, size merong retention limit na 5 hectares. So ang police
power dito yun pag determine ng retention limit regulate ang property use mo e. Ang eminent domain dito ay ang pag
expropriate ng sumobra sa 5 hectares kasi kailangan para sa pambayad ng just compensation. Sa CARL kukunin na
agad ang lupa tapos issue ng certificate yun beneficiary un farmer. Hindi porke binigyan ng certificate kanya na agad un
kaya walang deprivation ng right dito binigay lang ang certificate meaning pwede maging entitled at hindi automatic
ang transfer ng ownership dapat mag-comply sa conditions ang gobyerno. Dapat bayaran ang may-ari it is upon the
payment of just compensation through the Landbank that will effect the transfer of ownership. Kinuha ang property
may just compensation binigay sa Landbank ang pera at ang bank maraming kondisyon. Hindi pwede. Kinuha na nga
ang property delay pa ang bayad. Double whammy ito! Ito ang magdedetermine ng transfer sa beneficiary farmer.

DAR at province at barangay determine nila, meron silang formula sa pagcompute ng just compensation. Pag pumayag
ka ibenta based on the formula hindi pupunta sa court pumayag ka na. Otherwise pupunta sila sa court. Based on the
formula of the DAR, hindi ba ito violation ng determination ng just compensation as a judicial function? No. This is
only a preliminary ng DAR and it is the court that will ultimately determine; second, the court does not bind itself to the
formula of the DAR.

Pag nadetermine na ang just compensation kailangan may prompt payment. Pwede ang immediate possession nga e by
posting a bond ngayon kinuha ang property at determined ang just compensation at hindi ka pa binabayaran. There is
delay or non-payment for five years (Mactan International Airport) therefore the government must pay damages in the
form of legal interest from the time the court determined just compensation hanggang sa time na hindi nagbabayad ang
State at 12 per cent legal rate of interest. History of interest, dati may batas Commonwealth Act 6 per cent ang legal
rate. Later there is a law empowering the Central Bank to issue circulars and fix the legal rate of interest. Based on its
circular it was made 12 per cent. Later, nagkaroon ng circular 12 per cent na. Now, may bagong effective na circular, 6
per cent uli. Kinuha ang property 1901 at hindi nagbabayad sa tagal pano ang compute. Tingnan ang panahon kailang
imposable ang 6 per cent hanggang saan, then kailan nag 12 per cent, and then kailan naging 6 per cent.

June 30, 2013 end of the 12 per cent; July 1, 2013 start of the 6 per cent.

12 per cent New Civil Code; BSP Circular 6 percent: forbearance of money or loan. So the 12 per cent applies. Later
the SC ruled that the interest that resulted in the delay of the government in paying the just compensation constitutes
forbearance of money, so utang na rin ito. Therefore it should be 6 per cent rate of interest. Kaya lang merong cut-off e,
July 1, 2013 nung ginawang 6 per cent. Para simple ganito na lang, babayaran ka ng gobyerno from the time the court
has determined the just compensation plus interest of 12 per cent or 6 per cent pag umabot ng July 1, 2013.

Kinuha ang property at binayaran ng just compensation for a particular purpose which is to build an airport in
Pampanga. Later, nagbago ang isip ng gobyerno mas maganda sa Bulacan. Ginawa inabandona ang project sa
Pampanga. Lumipat sa Bulacan. Paano ang property kahit nabayaran ka na? You have the right to repurchase the
property the right of reconveyance of the property. Kaso may catch, kailangan ibalik ang binayad na just compensation
plus the legal rate of interest, if any. Ngayon, nag-appreciate ang lupa dahil pinaganda ng gobyerno. Hindi mo
kasalanan na inabandona nila ang project e. Kinuha ang property mo gagawing airport tapos nagbago ang isip at
ginawang housing ng mga piloto. Pero for another public use. Dapat kailangan mag-file ng bagong petition for
expropriation dahil ginamit sa ibang public use. Tandaan mo ito! There is a need for the government to file another
petition for a different public use. Kinuha ang property for public use pero walang fina-file na petition pero ginagamit
na for public use, ikaw hindi ka na interested na mapa-sa iyo uli dahil ginalaw na, pero walang formal petition for
expropriation. Pwede kang manghingi ng just compensation kahit walang fina-file. Kinuha na kasi ang property e. This
is inverse condemnation. Usually kasi file muna ng petition saka babayaran. Dito sa inverse condemnation kinuha na
kahit wala pang petition. Do not confuse this with the payment of the just compensation plus legal interest in case of
delay in the form of damages. Nag-file, determined, hindi agad nagbayad, entitled ka sa payment plus legal rate of
interest. Sa inverse, walang file, kinuha at ginamit agad ang property.
Ang NAPOCOR nagtayo ng power lines mag-cut across sa ibabaw ng property ni X. Nagbayad ng easement si
NAPOCOR. Hindi magamit ni X ang property niya ng tama dahil sa worried siya. Si X humingi ngayon ng just
compensation, inverse condemnation. Sabi ng SC, easement is just one payment, continuously X is paying the real
property tax every year but he cannot fully enjoy the use of his property because of the conditions imposed by
NAPOCOR. This is tantamount to taking so X must be paid of just compensation.

PLDT dati solo nila ang telecom business. Ang problem sa Bayantel ilan pa lang ang subscribers so among their
subscribers madali tumawag pero mahirap tumawag sa PLDT dahil iba magkaiba ang kanilang systems. Can the State
compel PLDT to enter into a contract with Bayantel for telephone interconnection? No. Contract is the meeting of the
minds it cannot be imposed upon you against your will. The government cannot do that. But it can require PLDT or
compelt it to make an interconnection (not to enter into a contract) with Bayantel but since there is a compulsion which
amounts to taking of the property they must be paid just compensation in the exercise of eminent domain; compulsion
power but not to compel to enter into a contract. Bagaman ang suma total pareho.

Pero kapag ang eminent domain power is exercised by an LGU or by an executive office or department or by a private
corporation by virtue of a law, take note that the power is not inherent but mere delegated to them. Therefore they must
comply with the rules on due delegation of powers and completeness test.

Aside from the above conditions, there is an additional condition if the expropriation is not done by the State. Pag State
kasi by virtue of a law (Congress); LGU by ordinance; HLURB or HUDCC

Local Government Code may procedure dito how to expropriate, hindi agad-agad. Kung interested sa private property,
Sanggunian of the LGU (except the barangay which has no power to expropriate) will enact an ordinance authorizing
the local chief executive to make a specific offer to the owner in writing to purchase the property indicating the
purpose: plaza. Ordinance first then the letter. The letter states: what property, purpose and how much is the offer price,
attached thereto (letter) the ordinance authorizing the local chief executive to purchase and the certificate from the local
treasurer that they have enough funds to pay the amount of the property. IRR of the LGC and another certificate from
the local treasurer that the funds shall not be used for purpose or purposes other than what is stated in the letter. A
Resolution is not allowed. Ordinance is more permanent (bawal umihi sa pader) and passes in 3 readings while a
resolution is temporary (make every birthday of Pacquiao as Manny Pacquiao Day) and passes in 2 readings. Tapos pag
pumayag ang owner at the amount offered just execute a deed of sale no need to expropriate; if the owner is willing to
sell his property to the LGU only they do not agree with the price, the LGU will create a committee to hold a
preliminary conference with the owner to arrive at a mutual price, the ex-officio is the chairman of the committee on
finance of the council. If they agree execute a deed of sale. So two things: if the owner does not agree to sell his
property, or the owner agrees to but no amount has been mutually arrived at that a petition for expropriation can be had
but another ordinance must be passed by the council this time authorizing the local chief executive to file a petition to
expropriate the property. Another ordinance. Take note. Yun letter in writing dapat at kung marami ang owners dapat
meron lahat isa-isa. Pag hindi sinunod ito at derecho petition or kuha agad property, not valid. Hindi kasi nag-comply sa
additional requirement: genuine necessity of taking. Kasi hindi naman sila Congress.

Bago pa ang LGC nagamit na ang genuine necessity sa City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery. There was an ordinance
extending Rizal Avenue breaching through the cemetery area so ang mga pamilya na masasagasaan. May isang affected
na nag-offer ng iba niyang lupa nang libre. The SC ruled that the expropriation of the LGC is invalid because there is
not genuine necessity of taking considering an offer was made to the city to have another property for public use for
free. But now tingnan mo nahati ang cemetery may kinuhang bahagi sa gitna. After this case kasi nagpasa ng batas ang
Congress expropriating that portion dahil kailangan talaga. The genuine necessity cannot be invoked in this case
because it is now Congress doing the expropriating which is in its exercise of eminent domain—an inherent power.

Edsa going to Roxas Boulevard tatamaan mga establishments mga night clubs at cabarets ayon sa Batas Pambansa na
nilabas ng Congress to expropriate a property. DPWH changed its mind and decided to change the course thereby
hitting residential houses. SC hindi sinabi na invalid ang expropriation dahil walang genuine necessity of taking. Hindi
talaga pwede sabihin dahil hindi naman LGU ang gumawa ng expropriation kundi ang State through Congress so hindi
applicable. So the expropriation was declared unconstitutional because the law is arbitrary, confiscatory, oppressive
thereby violating substantive due process and the SC has the power to determine whether there is violation of the due
process clause.

After 10 years ginawa ng gobyerno un ibang nakatira binayaran na pumayag naman but Dineck so expropriate uli ng
government. Res Judicata na ito a. The SC ruled Res Judicata does not apply in expropriation proceedings or cases.
Why? Because circumstances change after ten years conditions change. Ikaw na lang ang nandiyan e. There is no
violation of equal protection of the laws. This does not apply in expropriation proceedings. Pero teka, equal protection
applies in expropriation cases if the one doing the expropriation are LGUs because the power to do so is only delegated
not inherent.

RA 7279 or UDHA or Socialized Housing (Article 13, Section 9 of the Constitution) pursuant to this law ang gagawing
socialized housing dapat: (following this order)

1. Government lands
2. Abandoned or idle lands
3. Lands already chosen for socialized housing
4. Bliss
5. ? ? ?
6. Private owned lands (pang-anim lang). May malaking burden ang government to prove kung na-exhaust na un first
five bago tumalon sa pang-anim. Exception, pag ang property mo ay less than 800 sqm devoted for residential purpose
hindi kasama sa pag-expropriate for socialized housing. Exception to the exception, kahit below sa 800 sqm pero kung
may other properties pa na residential ay pwede na kunin ng gobyerno.

Pro Hac Vice – “for this time or event or occasion only” – Latin term

Minsan hindi kinukuha ang buong property kundi partial lang.

Properties not included in the above enumeration is patrimonial property.

General rule that the property is not to be taken except on

November 20, 2016

1. What is the basis of a judge in issuing a warrant of arrest? Probable cause.

2. What will justify the peace officer in making a search in a cargo truck (moving vehicle) without a warrant? Probable

3. What doctrine or principle allows seizure without a warrant of an illegal object exposed to hand? Plain View
Doctrine or Principle.

4. Who can give consent or a waiver to a warrantless search of a residential house? The lawful occupant or owner

5. The right against unreasonable search and seizure is addressed against whom? The State and its agents.

6. In serving a search warrant how many witnesses must be present if the owner of the place to be searched is not
present during the same? At least two witnesses under the Rules of Court.

7. A private person may conduct a lawful arrest without a warrant. True. As well as a police officer.

8. A private person may conduct a lawful search without a warrant. False. If the private person searches and seizes
something and he hands it over to the police that police can take advantage of the situation and use it as an evidence
in court therefore it is admissible. But the search of the private person is still unlawful. In fact although there is no
crime of illegal search damages can be had by way of a civil action. Generally only a police officer.

9. for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest only a judge can determine probable cause. True. The determination of a
fiscal of probable cause is for purposes of filing the information in court not the issuance of a warrant.

10. As a general rule a John Doe warrant must only charge a single offense. True. John Doe or not single offense only
for a warrant to be issued. One offense, one warrant. Except when more than one offense is punishable under a
special law like Republic Act 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

11. Congress can impose taxes without constitutional grant. True. It is an inherent power of the State no need for the
Constitution to grant it to Congress and this is legislative in nature.

12. MTRCB can promulgate rules and regulations beneficial for the preservation and protection and promotion of public
morals. False. MTRCB does not make laws. Only Congress.

13. The rule is that the State may deprive a person of his rights. False. The role is not to do that and if so it carries a
heavy burden on the part of the State to show that there is a state interest, clear and present danger.

14. The constitutional definition of due process is a law which hears before it condemns. False. There is no definition of
due process in the constitution.

15. Police power is the power to (not “of”) police. True. It is the power of the State to police—to limit or regulate.

16. The Constitution grants inherent power of the State. False. Inherent powers are innate.

17. The Constitution grants human rights to individuals. False. These are natural rights. God-given. They are there to be
protected only.

18. Purpose of eminent domain is to take private property. False. To make the property available for public use. Taking
is the means.

19. The person deprived of his rights by the police gets nothing in return. False. The person gets this altruistic feeling
which is good for the society.

20. The people delegated the power to tax to Congress. True. This is an inherent power of the State, who created it.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

This is the weakest right in the Bill of Rights because as a right to contract it is a mere property right. When you enter
into a contract you must include whether you agree or not it is included in the contract that the parties should follow the
constitution of the law, regulations and ordinances. In short it must not be contrary to law. As soon as you enter into a
contract you already suffer a congenital ? ? ? ? whether or not you put it in the contract. A contract is not a law. Law is
passed by the legislative. Contract is entered into by parties. However it should not be contrary to law because law is
superior than contract. However contract and law are the same is such a way that they impose obligations. However it is
the law with respect to the contracting parties, between them. Those who are not privy to the contract are not bound to
follow the same. They are not signatories. Contract may be entered into by the contracting parties authorized to enter
into a contract by law. They have legal capacity to enter into contract just like the State entering into a contract and you
called it an international agreement/treaty. The treaty is only valid to the contracting states, those who are not agreeable
and privy to it are not bound to follow it. However two parties or state may enter into an agreement where the
beneficiary would be third person—stipulation por autrui. Treaties and contracts are the same. And in international law
there are certain universally accepted principles which need not be in a treaty, that with or without a treaty all members
of earth planet should follow these. Problem is enforcement because there is no world armed forces to enforce them.
Usually the more powerful enforce against the powerless. Imposition or enforcement may be in the form of economic
embargo, diplomatic means, stoppage of foreign assistance, military intervention, or war. Diplomacy ends when war
begins. You know diplomacy is an art of politics: how to compromise, and give and take.

When two persons stop being diplomatic, away sila. Pag dalawang grupo, rambol. Pag dalawang grupo sa isang bansa,
civil war. Pag dalawang bansa, war. Pag higit sa dalawang bansa, world war. When war begins politics ends. Stop being
political you go to war.

A contract is a meeting of the minds, not of the hearts between two person in order to fulfil an obligation to give, to do
or not to do. Three prestations: to give, to do or not to do. When is there an impairment of the obligation of contract?
There is impairment when the terms and conditions of the contract are changed. When it adds something which is not
there and diminishes something that is there. When it changes the relationship between the contracting parties.

A and B enter into a contract. A will sell to B 100 sacks of rice, the latter will pay 1,000 per sack. This is a contract of
sale. A reciprocal contract because one takes and the other gives. Before delivery and before payment but after the
agreement a law was passed. So B has to pay a total of 100,000 pesos. A law was passed imposing a 10 per cent tax for
every sale of goods. This will create an additional burden on the part of either party or both. Is the law an impairment of
the obligation of contract? NO. It did not change the terms of the contract, both of them will fulfill their respective
obligation. It did not change their relationship. It imposed an obligation on one or both but not on each other. Besides
the government is not a party to the contract. And even assuming it impairs the obligation of contract, it does violate the
Constitution because it is an exercise of the power of taxation which is another inherent power of the State which
contractual right as a property right must yield thereto.

A and B (the government) enter into a contract where A will construct a road for B and the latter will pay for 100
million pesos. Half will be given at the signing of the contract and the other half after the completion of the project.
While the project is ongoing a law was passed an austerity measure that all projects to be contracted by the government
or already contracted will be limited to 50 million pesos. Is this impairment? YES. The agreement is for 100 million and
it will be reduced in half they cannot change the agreement without the consent of the government. But here is the
government changing the agreement without the consent of A by sheer passage of a law. This is unfair that is why you
have the non-impairment of the obligation of contract as a guarantee to your contractual rights. The government is the
party of the contract, its act changed its obligation in the contract, its act changed their relationship.

A donated a parcel of land to the government the latter accepted the donation (acceptance is necessary) but there is a
condition it should not be converted to a commercial land within 5 years. The government passed a zoning ordinance
making the whole area or community a commercial district. So natayuan ng commercial structures as a consequence of
the passage of the ordinance. Is this an impairment of the obligation of contract between them? YES. Does this violate
the Section 10 or the non-impairment clause of the Constitution? NO. Although there is an impairment changing the
terms and condition of the agreement zoning regulation is an exercise of police power. Police power is an inherent
power of the State and as such a contract is a mere property right cannot limit an inherent power of the State. In fact
when they entered into a contract it already suffers from an congenital infirmity and the contract must abide by
government regulations, laws and the Constitution. The State cannot part in a way its inherent power by simply entering
into a contract lest it deprives the people of the promotion of the general welfare. Here, even if this is a contract and it
impairs the obligation of the State, if the act is done in the exercise of police power the same is valid. In fact if the State
devotes the said property for public use the same is valid for being an exercise of the State’s inherent power of eminent
domain to which the right to contract must yield as a necessary ? ? ?

Pag ka may question sa contract at nag file ng kaso sa court and the court interpreted in such a manner that it impairs
the obligation of contract. Is it a violation of the Constitution? NO. Because the provision of the Constitution is directed
to the legislative: no law impairing the obligation of contract shall be impaired. Only the legislative department passes
laws. The court merely interprets. If it changes certain procedural means in order to attain the subject matter or purpose
of the obligation in such a manner that it is different from the contract it does not impair as long as it leaves a necessary
remedy to enforce the contract.

Pag nag enter into a contract it is contrary to law at the time it is entered the same is invalid. Pag valid tulad ng
minimum wage okay naman ang binigay na wage pero tumaas ang wage sa batas, police power must be superior to the
contract. Adjusted ang contract. Therefore merong mga nagsasabi useless ang Section 10 because if it is a private
contract between two parties the non-impairment clause will not apply, the government is not a party to the contract.
But if it is a public contract where the government is one of the parties even if it impairs if it in the exercise of police
power or eminent domain which one of its objectives has public interest then the contract must yield to the inherent
power of the State. Nowadays you look that no law which have no public interest, lahat may public interest. So useless
it adds nothing which the due process clause does not protect and it diminishes nothing which the equal protection
clause does not prohibit.

Maraming special contracts na pwedeng impair ng batas kasi special sila e: marriage, employment contract kaya
nakikialam ang State.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.

Pwedeng i-deny sa person by reason of other things not by reason of poverty hindi pwede. Dati pag nasa court at
accused ka sa criminal case, pwede magturo si judge ng abogado para magdefend sa accused.

Indigents are exempted from the payment of filing fees. Si Erap nagkakaso gusto niya PAO ang magdefend. Hindi
naman siya mahirap para lang sa mahirap. Merong NGO mga madre tumutulong sa mahihirap pag nagkakakaso
tinutulungan nila. Sila mismo nagkaroon ng kaso exempted daw sila sa filing fees NGO sila a juridical person helping
the poor. SC said poverty is something that only natural persons suffer not juridical persons.

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.

You are not an accused but only a suspect who is under custodial investigation. As early as this stage you already have a
set of rights: right to be informed that you have rights—right to remain silent (in the US this is not in their Constitution
but in their jurisprudence) talo tayo dito sa enforcement, and anything you say under Paragraph 3 or the Exclusionary
Rule. Pag nagsalita ng walang abogado ang mga sasabihin niya cannot be used as evidence against in court. Take note
of Miranda Rights in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona.

Competent: may inaresto sa isang barangay at dinala sa barangay hall. He was interviewed by the chairman. Tinawag
niya ang parish priest at mayor at principal ng isan iskwelahan, sabi ng tatay at asawa. Does this comply with the
competence requirement? NO. There is no substitute to a true lawyer. Besides protection against the State nga e tapos
chairman ang mag-aasta na abogado samantalang agent of the State siya.

Independent of his own choice: kung sino ang gusto ng tao at hindi sinaksak sa baga niya ng pulis. O State ang pumili.
Bawal ito. Maliban na lang kung wala siyang pera kaya pwede ang State kaya merong PAO. Pwedeng bang i-waive ang
right? Lahat ng rights pwede i-waive. Right to a counsel pwede kaya lang dati pirmahan mo yan pero tinakot naman.
Kaya nga dapat in writing ang waiver at ginawa sa harap ng isang abogado. Bago mag-waive ng right to a lawyer dapat
may kaharap na lawyer para alam na walang duress.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which they vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
This is a new provision in the Constitution as a response to the abuses committed during the martial law. Section 12 is a
provision is a provision worth fighting for. Kahit anong sama ng tao meron siyang rights sa early stage pa lang ng
investigation. In order to implement this provision in the Anti Torture Act, here you have a right to have a competent
and independent doctor of your own choice to physically and mentally examine if you have been a victim of torture,
violence or threat. And this right, a statutory right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of a lawyer.
This is not only applicable during custodial investigation but also if the accused has been convicted.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof, shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible. Confession
inaadmit niya ang kanyang guilt: ako po ang may kasalanan; admission inaadmit ang certain facts which might be an
evidence of the crime but not the crime itself: opo, ako po ang pumatay. Hindi ibig sabihin guilty dahil pwedeng self
defense. Even admission which is done according to the requirements are inadmissible in evidence.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Paragraph 4 bago yan, hindi lang kulong pwede ka humingi ng damages. Meron din for the rehabilitation of the victims
of torture as well as their families. Kailangan dito ng matinong enabling law. Kunwari kinulong ka pwede mong
demanda under the anti torture act kapag tinorture. Kinulong naman at ang tagal na ng kaso mo, nag-appeal ka pa, 15
years ka na nakakulong non-bailable. Sabi sa iyo acquitted ka pala. Ang tagal mo sa kulungan at hindi na maibabalik
ang nawalang mga taon sa buhay mo. Ang DOJ dati meron silang pabuya sa mga tao na 20k, baka tinaas na ngayon.
Binibigay ito sa mga taong ganito ang sitwasyon na hindi pala guilty. Tulad kay Hubert Webb.

Para pumasok sa Section 12 dapat you are under custodial investigation. Kung general inquiry lang kung ano ang
napansin mo o may narinig ka bang putok. At this point you are not a suspect. Hindi ka pa entitled sa mga rights na
nakasaad dito. If the question is focused on you and this is not a general inquiry. At this point dapat sabihan ka na ng
iyong mga rights.

Office employee nagkaroon ng nakawan so nagtanong ang mga pulis at isa sa mga kinausap. Tinanong ng mga
nalalaman niya. Custodian siya ng pera ng office so siya ang tatanungin: paano nabubuksan itong safe, etc. Later
sinampahan siya ng kaso at nagreklamo siya dahil hindi siya sinabihan ng kanyang mga rights at he was not assisted by
a counsel of his own choice. Inadmissible? Mahirap kung ang tanong is his argument valid? Or is the police making the
arrest correct?

Pag hindi ka sigurado sa sagot always rule in favour of the accused because he presumed innocent. Sa labor law rule
kung you are in doubt rule in favour of labor. Pag civil if unsure, rule in favour of the disadvantaged bec. law is about
justice and fairness. Kung sa political law hindi ka sure, aba ay mag-aral ka naman. Dahil ang dami mong hindi sure.

Available lang ang mga rights na ito sa mga persons under custodial investigation not under a general inquiry, when the
person has become the focus of an investigation as a suspect. Questionable din ang word na custody. When is this?
Imbitahan lang namin siya. Malabo ito dahil gawain ito ng pulis. Pwede kang tumanggi. Kung hindi siya pwede umalis
therefore arestado. Bilang ka ng oras mula ng arrest para sa possible case of arbitrary detention.

Paano ina-identify ang tao under custodial investigation? Show-up, the suspect is brought to the witness face-to-face
para ma-identify; mugshots, picture-picture whacky pose; line-up, hilera sino po sa kanila diyan? A group of persons
lined up to be identified by the witness. How do you resolve the admissibility of the process—line-up—merong maong
na may laslas sa tuhod sa kaliwa or t-shirt na dilaw. Wag mo sila pasusuotin ng ganito otherwise baka ituro nga. Yun
misis na nagrereklamo who is the witness instead of going to the police station at makita ang line-up natatakot baka
makita ng accused nagtago sa loob ng kotse niya kasama ang police. Naka-tint ang kotse pero kita niya ang nasa labas.
From the inside she is pointing to the suspect. There is nothing irregular about this said the Supreme Court in fact this is
much safer because our police precincts do not have rooms like this. Buti pa ang sauna bath may one-way mirror bakit
ang police stations natin wala? At naka-line up din silang lahat.

Paano nalalaman kung admissible ang naging testimony ng witness based on the procedure used by the police? Apply
no hard and fast rule, Totality of Circumstances Test: did the witness have the opportunity to view the suspect at the
time the crime was committed, what was the degree of attention of the witness at that time—nakita mo? At that time
anong ginagawa mo?; the accuracy of the description, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness, the length of
time between the time of the crime and the identification of the perpetrator. Baka masyado nang matagal. The
suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
When do you say a confession or admission is voluntary or coerced? If you apply torture, violence, threat, or you did
not inform a person of the Miranda Doctrine—one positive act and one negative. Extra judicial confessions to be
admissible must be voluntary made with the assistance of counsel independent and competent. It must be expressed and
in writing. Minsan merong laging naka-beat na media pag may aresto at kukunan ng media while being interviewed.
Kapag sumuko, this protection does not apply to him. Sumuko ka e.

Hindi porke inadmissible ang statement mo hindi ka na ma-convict. If there are other evidence to convict you pwede pa

Kapag accused na, another set of rights should be afforded to the person.

As a victim you have on your side the whole resources of government: the prosecutor and the police. Sa accused siya
lang. Pag sinampahan ka ng Information sa court, you have the right to bail, a mode which is short of confinement to
ensure the attendance of the accused in future hearings to be called for by the trial court. Temporary liberty because you
are presumed innocent until proven guilty otherwise. Bail is your assurance that you will attend the trial. Pag hindi ka
umattend kakanselahin ang bail mo. Hindi na ibabalik ang pera mo at may warrant of arrest ka pa because you jumped
bail. Pwedeng cash. Convicted or acquitted, the bail will be returned to you. Habol lang naman ay to assure you will
attend the trial. Nag-attend ka naman e. Minsan wala kang cash. Parang insurance company din. Bail bond application
sa mga insurance or bonding companies. May premium na depende kung flight risk ka, etc. Sila ang magtitiyak na
aatend ka sa court. Sa bail bond, kanselado bail, may warrant of arrest at may obligation ang company na hanapin ka
pag hindi ka nahanap maba-blacklist ang company. Acquitted or convicted at dumadalo ka hindi na ibabalik ang
premium. Kapalit ng cash in case wala ka. Pwede ring recognizance which is depende sa stature mo. Hindi tatakas yan
dahil matinong tao yan halimbawa si mayor assuring that the councilor will not flee. Pag jump bail ka blacklist na siya.
Bail is a matter of right a constitutional right, not inherent and natural. Except if the penalty is reclusion perpetua or
death and the evidence of guilt is strong. Or a capital offense. But if it is so but the evidence of guilt is not strong then
you should be granted bail. Evidence of guilt is strong but not a capital offense you should be granted bail. Capital
offense but evidence of guilt is not strong you should be granted bail. How would you know if the evidence of guilt is
strong or not? Petition for Bail and a hearing will be conducted. Walang reasonable doubt requirement ito but as long as
there is substantial evidence to grant bail.

Jaywalking, 1 million pesos bail. This is excessive bail. Hindi pwede ito. It is as if you did not grant him bail so nawala
na ang right to bail. Paano malalaman? Depends on the offense being charged which must be commensurate to the
offense being charged. Factors: are you a flight risk, recidivist, habitual delinquent, mahirap ka bang hanapin?

Not a capital offense, MTC, convicted, on appeal to the RTC, bail granted as a matter of right hindi pa kasi tapos ang

Capital offense, therefore RTC, convicted, on appeal to the CA or SC, bail granted as a matter of discretion not a right,
in fact the evidence of guilt is strong because you are convicted.

Enrile capital offense, evidence of guilt is strong, bail granted for humanitarian consideration.

Challenged the illegality of arrest, ayaw mong makulong, ang rule dati pag nagfile ng bail you waive questioning the
illegality of the arrest ibig sabihin kinikilala mo ang arrest as valid. Ngayon, pag nagfile ng bail hindi ibig sabihin
kinikilala mo ang validity ng arrest dahil ang tao daw ay ayaw naman makulong kahit isang araw. Kaya lang kapag na-
arraign ka na, you are already waiving the question of the validity of the arrest because you are already submitting
yourself to the jurisdiction of the court. Lumalaban ka na sa demanda laban sa iyo. Waiving the question on the validity
of the arrest does not mean waiver of the question of the validity of the search and seizure.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) Here, it was emphasized what are the due process rights in a criminal proceeding. What are these? Presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved; Right to be heard by himself and by counsel merong right to be silent and the right
to be heard; right to be heard of the nature and cause of the accusation against him it is not enough that you are charged
with rape it must described the nature of the cause (elements and facts that will constitute the crime) of the rape through
the Information, “on or about . . .”; speedy (naiinip ang tao), impartial (hindi tinitingan ang taong involved nakatuon
lang sa batas) and public trial (nakikita ng tao open sa tao, except sa mga bagay na sensitive tulad ng babae na ginahasa)
yun witness nakikita ng publiko face to face. Pero kapag bata ang witness to protect the child pwedeng nasa ibang room
at naka-hook na lang ang camera or kukunan na lang ng deposition this is traumatic for the child except with the
consent of the family or parents; compulsory processes subpoena to either testify (subpoena ad testificandum) or bring
documents (subpoena duces tecum). Pagfix ng date considerations: financial ability of the accused, the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the penalty for the offense charged, the character and the reputation of the accused, the
weight of evidence against, the probability of his appearance meaning he is not a flight risk, whether he was a fugitive
from justice when he was arrested, other pending cases against him when he is also under bail.

Si Trillanes nagkudeta tapos nakulong. Pending litigation hindi pa siya convicted at humihiling siya na makalabas ng
kulungan to fulfill his duties as senator. Sabi ng SC un person who is presumed innocent does not enjoy all civil and
political rights, hindi ka nga guilty pero hindi para ang buhay ay parang wala lang nangyari. Hindi siya pinayagan. But
the presumption of innocence is lost where is a final judgment. While on appeal hindi pa final.

Right to counsel pag nasa trial ka na, kung ayaw mo, defend mo sarili mo kung kaya mo.

Kapag may aggravating circumstance or qualifying circumstance it must be alleged in the Information.
Sinampahan ng kaso for one offense tapos ma-convict for another offense dapat alleged in the Information otherwise it
violates his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. You cannot be convicted which
is not included in the Information this goes also in civil and administrative cases (serious misconduct for taking the
company vehicle without permission and was caught for DUI hindi mo siya pwedeng parusahan for alcohol use kung
naka-charge lang ay pagtangay ng kotse ng kumpanya, it must be included in the accusation or charge sheet).

Sa Metro Manila Preliminary Investigation Fiscal filing of Information; hearing judge. Sa province, MTC Preliminary
Investigation Judge, sa kanya rin napunta ang raffle ang case. Violation of impartiality? NO. Magkaiba ang function
performed. The evidence required is different: probable cause and proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety requires it.

An order of the court commanding an officer of the law to bring the body of a person and present him in court and
explain the reason for his detention.

Two reasons: One, to inform the accused of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him; second, to
determine if the accused is still alive and know his whereabouts.

Bakit mo ba kinukulong ito? Nagnakaw po. O sige okay. At least alam mo ang dahilan ng iyong detention so you can
prepare for an intelligent defense.

Take note that this remedy is a privilege. This privilege is a constitutional right cannot be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Hindi kasali dito ang drugs or lawless violence. It is not enough
that there is rebellion or invasion public safety must require it. Because if the government says that everything is under
control there is no need to suspend the privilege because public safety does not require it. The moment the government
suspends the privilege it means the situation is not under control. Mahinang klaseng gobyerno. Assuming there is
invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it, pwede bang mag-suspend ng writ of habeas corpus ang Presidente?
NO. The president cannot suspend the writ because a writ is an order of the court. The president will violate the
principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judicial departments. The president can only suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Under this writ it is available or this happens when there is an involuntary restraint of liberty, kinulong ka without
explanation or there is voluntary restraint of liberty—sa mga magulang at mga anak. Anak mo ay in custody of another
person kahit gusto pa ng anak mo, since siya ang magulang siya ang may karapatan mag file ng petition. Does such
person have the parental authority to hold the child in custody? Kidnapped ang sariling anak at magfile ang isang
spouse. Another is, you are sentenced with a penalty of imprisonment beyond the limits the court is supposed to impose.
8 months lang pero ginawa ng court na 12 months nakakulong ka pa rin. Pwedeng magfile ng writ na ito.

Sa suspension ng privilege may mga features sa new constitution. State of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the constitution. Dati suspended ang operation ang constitution. Civilian ka kahit na martial law kapag ang offense is
not a military offense you should be tried in a civilian court especially when the civilian courts are open. This is the
complaint of Sen. Ninoy Aquino.

Article 7, Section 18: apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion, invasion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion. Hindi sa kahit anong kaso. Kahit suspended ang privilege of the writ. The suspension and
declaration of martial law hindi naman kailangan ang buong bansa basta where public safety requires it.
“Non scholae sed vitae discimus” Not for school but for life we study.

Under the present constitution, you can go to the SC and inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or the declaration of martial law. Before it is up to the President when to lift the suspension
or declaration. Now, within 48 hours he must report to the Congress and the latter will decide whether to proceed with it
or not, if not in session Congress within 24 hours must convene and decide whether to lift or continue the declaration or
suspension, or extend the period. Maraming safeguards.

The President’s 3 military powers: first, calling out of the military in case of invasion, rebellion or lawless violence;
second, declare martial law; and third, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The problem is that your father is missing and you filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus and the police or the
military denies having the custody of your father so how can they produce the body. Dead end ka na dito. The SC
provided a remedy: Writ of Amparo—to protect (di ba pulis kayo? E di hanapin ninyo!) This started in Mexico and
was adopted in the Philippines.

A remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated, or threatened with violation. Hindi
kailangang magkaroon ng actual violation of his right to life, liberty and security, by an actual act or omission of a
public official or employee or a private individual or entity. What is SC’s basis to establish this rule? One of the powers
of the SC to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional right Article 8, Section 5.
The petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified.

Contents of the petition:

 Personal circumstances of the petitioner

 The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat or violation, act or omission
 If not known, assumed appellation like John Doe (respondent)
 The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated by an unlawful act or omission or the threat
committed by attendant circumstances must be supported by affidavits
 Gagawa ng report ang respondent as to the manner of the conduct of the investigation that he made (how did you
determine the whereabouts?)
 The relief prayed for and

Where? In the RTC where the threat, act or omission was committed. or any of its elements committed. Anywhere in
the Philippines. Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, Court of Appeals or any of its justices, SC or any of its justices.
No docket fee. The burden of proof is substantial evidence. The SC reduced the rules to the most basic test of reason
that is the relevance to the issue, and the consistency of the evidence with other pieces of evidence. In this regard the SC
may take totality of evidence to determine if the basis for issuing the writ is justified. It continued even hearsay
evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test of relevance and consistency.

What reliefs available in such writ: Production of all official and unofficial reports about the person from the authorities
who undertook the investigation. You have the right to demand for these. List of medical and personnel or military or
civilian persons who had contact with such person. Disclosure of the present place or official assignments of the
identified military personnel. Kahit retired pa sila, saan sila ngayon the purpose is not to determine criminal culpability
or liability but to determine responsibility for the disappearance (who?) and accountability for the disappearance
(who?). The Doctrine of Command Responsibility may be applied. Sino ba ang mga superiors, the chain of command.
Pwede ring maging responsible and accountable. Now the chain or command responsibility may go up as high to the
commander-in-chief. Pwedeng isama sa kaso sa writ of Amparo because it does not determine criminal liability but
responsibility and accountability only but you must establish the connection that leads to the President.

If the atrocity is widespread and known to the public and the military is under your command, command responsibility
will lie.

The writ is both preventive and curative to address the problems of extra-legal killing and enforced disappearances.

Squatters gigibain ang mga bahay nila may threatened demolition ng kanilang bahay by virtue of a final judgment of the
court. This is not included in the enumeration of rights. Ang protected lang dito ay life, liberty and security for which
the writ is being availed. The claim that the dwelling does not constitute the right to life, liberty and security so there is
no legal basis for the issuance of the writ. According to the SC this new remedy is intended for the protection of the
highest possible rights of the person: life, liberty and security. The court will not waste its precious time to attend to the
matters not covered by the writ.

Mga magnanakaw na nahuli at detained ng mga guards ng villages hindi pwede mag-avail ng writ. Dapat may
involvement ng government element. Di ba pwede mag-lie ang writ even against a private individual. Yes. But even if
the person sought to be held accountable and responsible in a petition for writ amparo is a private individual, still,
government involvement remains an indispensable element. Example, private individuals used by the government as a
death squad or vigilante group whose objective or mission to liquidate criminals without due process of law. In the case
of the security guards they are purely private citizens without government involvement to speak of.

What is the defense ng respondent? Private individual—ordinary diligence; Public individual—extra-ordinary diligence.
There is no presumption of regularity of function in a writ of amparo case.

Writ of Habeas Data

An independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, informational privacy and freedom
of information of an individual to provide him a forum to enforce one’s right to the true informational privacy.
Sometimes informational privacy runs counter with legitimate state interest. The determination whether the writ being
an extraordinary remedy maybe granted in case of a delicate balancing of an alleged intrusion into the private life of an
individual and the relevant state interest involved. Walang hard and fast rule but based on facts and circumstances.

Who may file a petition? The aggrieved party pero kung patay na o nawawala in case of extralegal killing or enforced

 Spouse, children and parents

 Ascendant, descendant, collateral relatives, siblings withing the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
(kahit ayaw mag-file ng above group)

Writ of Kalikasan

Against violation or threat of a constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology by an unlawful act of a public
official or employee or private person or entity involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Take note you can file this petition if the
magnitude of the violation it prejudices the life, health and property of inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces.
Malawakan dapat ang threat sa ecology.

Section 16. Speedy disposition of cases.

The hearing is concluded waiting for the decision of the court only. Tagal lumabas. The right to a speedy trial is for the
interest and the right of the accused. Here, is the right both of the accused and especially the prosecution. Speedy trial sa
criminal case lang, wala naman kasing sense of urgency sa mga admin at civil cases. Dito kahit anong kaso at kahit
anong jurisdiction dapat mabilis ang pag-decide. Under the new Constitution may days and months to resolve cases
kaya lang sabi ng SC sa dami ng kaso minsan directory or suggestion at hindi mandatory. Kaya pag lumagpas ang court
na ang bahala lalo kung may justifiable reason for the delay ay okay lang.

Right Against Self-Incrimination. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Right against self-
incrimination. Kaya pag sinampahan ng kaso ang accused he is presumed innocent at the prosecution ang may burden to
show na siya ay guilty—proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even a tiny doubt which must be reasonable the
accused must be acquitted. The prohibition on compelling a person to be a witness against himself. Find your evidence
to prove your case and do not find it in the accused. The prohibition is for the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communication from him not an inclusion of his body as evidence when it is material. Ang bawal dito ay
testimonial evidence, writing and oral. Using an evidence you asked him to produce an evidence that does not exist at
all. Written evidence ikaw ang maghanap. Tapos blangko ang papel papasulatan mo ng bagay na laban sa kanya.

Bawal ito for 2 reasons:

 Humanitarian reason – torturing a person to confess for the alleged offense.

 Public policy – pag pinilit para hindi ma-incriminate he will lie this is not in accordance with public policy.
May nagnakaw at hinawakan ang bumbilya para hindi maliwanag. Ginamit ang bumbilya dahil may finger print. Sa
court ito ang papel pakilagay mo nga ang finger print baka sa iyo ito. Pwede ba ito? YES. Hindi ito testimonial or
written communication. The fingerprint is something which already exists gusto lang makita pareho ang impression.
Mugshot may picture hindi ito testimonial ito ang mukha mo nandiyan nandyan na yan. Short na nakita sa crime scene
pinasukat pwede ito material evidence ito hindi testimonial evidence. May mantas ng dugo sa crime scene kukuha ng
dugo para i-match. Pwede ito. Pagkuha ng dugo ay pure mechanical act at meron ka na niyan at hindi ka magproduce
out of nowhere. Sa US bawal ito. Substantial evidence to show na may link sa crime; a real evidence. Ang bawal ay
testimonial evidence, oral or written communication, not real evidence. Cheke may signature dito at tumalbog. Pirma ka
para ikumpara. Hindi pwede. Not a purely mechanical act it requires intelligence to produce the act. Yun panty ng rape
victim may sperm stain. Sa court hiniling ang accused na magproduce ng sperm para i-compare. Pwede ito. Not because
this is a purely mechanical act but because it is not a testimonial evidence, an oral or written communication.

Civil case:

Witness for the plaintiff invoking right against self incrimination hindi pa natatanong: hindi pwede
Witness for the respondent hindi pa pumupunta sa witness stand invoking right against self incrimination hindi pa
natatanong: hindi pwede

Criminal case:

Witness for the plaintiff invoking right against self incrimination hindi pa natatanong: hindi pwede; tinanong and
implicating the witness to the crime he can invoke pwede ito. Hintayin muna ang tanong.

Accused hindi pumupunta sa witness stand nag-invoke wala pang tanong: pwede sa criminal case dahil ang entire
proceedings ay designed to incriminate him. What question will the prosecutor ask that will not incriminate him?
Definitely all.

Waived his right and took the witness stand and asked question: what is your name? Then invokes the right. Pwede.
Again the whole proceedings is designed to incriminate him. Anytime the accused may invoke his right against self
incrimination. Ayoko na. Then all questioning must stop.

Witness ang mismong accused at tinawag ng defense counsel for direct examination, ayaw niya. What remedy? Change
your counsel. But of course it is understood that there is prior arrangement between the two with respect to the
questions that will be propounded to the accused. Here the accused cannot refuse to be cross examined by the
prosecution. Unfair naman. But the questions must be confined to the matters discussed in the direct examination
otherwise the defense may invoke his client’s right against self incrimination.

The right to believe is an absolute right.

Involuntary Servitude. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist unless as a penalty for a crime upon duly
conviction of a court of law. No person shall be compelled to work against his will because this is a form of slavery.

Labor Code pag merong natural disaster typhoon perishable goods and the employer asks you to work overtime. This is
allowed. Kung ayaw mo. Violation? Maybe. But not all rights are absolute. Even right to liberty may be limited when
there is clear and present danger and remember that there are many labor code provisions where there can be clear and
present danger: natural disaster, perishable goods, floods, act of God. Enter into a contract work for 3 years after 1 year
you quit you cannot be compelled to work. But be ready to face damages for breach of contract.

Rights against human trafficking. Working against a person’s will: sex slave or drug courier. Even if there is a contract
to do this the contract is void for violating public policy. Dito may gumamit sa iyo against your will. Example naman
mahilig ka sa sex at gusto mo pagkakitaan. You sell your self for sex. No human trafficking because it is you actually
and voluntrarily engaged in the act. Prostitution ito and not human trafficking.

Excessive fines depende sa offense charged dapat commensurate to the offense being charged. Limited sa ordinance
magbigay ng fine hanggang maximum of 1000 pesos sa city or province.

Cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment pinatakbo nang nakahubo at hubad sa Luneta or binuhusan ka ng isang
timbang hantik. Death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons when it involves heinous crimes.
Congress determines what is heinous and what is not.
Double jeopardy

To be jeopardized once is already difficult; twice is already unfair and it violates human rights. Kalaban mo State ikaw
mag-isa ka lang. Sinabi sa tao life imprisonment hindi masaya gusto death penalty nag file uli ng kaso, for the same
offense. Kinasuhan ka ng homicide hindi ka pwede kasuhan pataas like murder. Pwede reverse.

Bounced check alam mo walang pondo estafa ito BP 22. Dapat same offense kahit same act. Except in the case where
there is the same act (not offense) is punishable under two laws: statute and ordinance. Pwede ito double jeopardy.
Example, Clean Air Act a statute; Makati No Smoking Ordinance. If you get acquitted in either of these laws, you
cannot be charged under either law as well. Pag parehong law, same offense, single act resulting to different
consequences still double jeopardy: Jason Ivler, Reckless Imprudence resulting to Damage to Property, Serious Physical
Injury and Homicide. Reckless imprudence is considered one offense although the single act resulted to different

Dapat may first jeopardy—may jurisdiction ang court otherwise you will never be jeopardized. Second, arraigned.
Arraignment acquires jurisdiction over the accused. Minsan pinapayagan sa court ang provisional dismissal ng case. In
the meantime naka-archive. Mali ito kasi nadismiss mo na ang case kasi nga walang evidence ang prosecution. Hindi
pwedeng hintayin ang prosecution magkaroon ng evidence bago magpatuloy ang trial. Hindi kasalanan ng accused un.
Since dismissed na hindi na pwedeng kasuhan uli for the same offense kasi may first jeopardy. Unless may consent ang
accused at alam niya na his case is in the meantime archived at provisional dismissal lang so meaning he can be charged
later on or the trial will proceed which was momentarily held in abeyance.

Sabi ni Marcos i-acquit ang mga sundalo na sangkot sa Aquino-Galman double murder case. People power ushered a
new administration. It was revealed that moro-moro lang ang trial dahil nag-utos si Marcos. Kinasuhan uli. Sabi nila
double jeopardy. Sabi ng SC they were never jeopardized because moro-moro lang ang trial dahil may utos si Marcos.
Sabi sa rules judgement must be rendered after a lawful hearing and trial. There was no lawful hearing and trial dahil
moro-moro nga lang. Walang double jeopardy.

Dati ginawa mo walang penalty, nagpasa ng batas na may penalty na, hindi pwede ito. Ex-Post Facto law. Ibig sabihin
retroactive in application it makes criminal at the time when the crime committed was not criminal. Pwede reverse.

Ginawa mo ang crime penalty ay imprisonment, sentenced ka ang penalty is fine. Both expost facto law and bill of
attainder parehong bawal kasi retroactive application. Dapat kasi prospective application.

Bill of Attainder. There is a law punishing an act without judicial recourse. Lahat ng members ng CPP penalty for
being a member imprisonment. Punishing an act without judicial trial. Hindi Bill of Attainder dahil meron pa ring trial.

Supervening act. May binaril naghihingalo sa ospital. Nag file ng kaso frustrated homicide dahil buhay or serious
physical injury. During trial namatay ginawang homicide. Pwede. Walang double jeopardy. May supervening event
pwede i-amend ang Information. Hindi naman pwedeng file ang kaso ng homicide agad dahil buhay pa.

Section 20. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt or poll tax.

Kaya hindi maka-file dahil mahirap siya. Pwede ka mangutang hindi ka makukulong pag hindi nagbayad. Wag ka lang
mag-isyu ng cheke. Estafa may intent ka na manloko sabi mo may pondo wala pala, walang second chance dito.
Bouncing check malum prohibitum kahit wala kang intent na manloko dahil batas mismo ang nagsasabing crime ito.
May second chance dito na makapagbayad ka pa.
November 27, 2016

Suffrage is the right of the citizen to vote, citizens only. Dati may property requirement para makaboto. Noon nilagay sa
Election Code that it is a right and a duty. Tinanggal na ito. Nagbayad si Marcos kay Alejo Santos para kalabanin siya
sa eleksyon. Ngayon tinanggal na ang penalty of imprisonment pag hindi bumoto. Still it is a right and a duty.

All citizens na may qualification:

 18 years old on the day of the election when votes are cast
 At least 15 years old for the SK election
 Registered voter in the place where you are a resident for at least 6 months preceding the election
 No educational and property requirement


 Persons who have been sentenced by final judgment for an imprisonment of one year or more, unless such
disqualification is removed by plenary pardon or granted amnesty or service of sentence (after 5 years from the
time you have served).
 Any person adjudged by final judgment of having committed crime involving disloyalty to duly constituted
authorities like sedition, rebellion, violation of the anti subversion law, firearms law, crimes against national
security unless given pardon, or amnesty or service of sentence (after 5 years from the time you have served).
 Insane or incompetent persons (a competent doctor must be the one to declare as such)

Dual citizens under RA 9225 may exercise the right of suffrage under the provisions on the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act or RA 9189. Even their children who acquire derivative citizenship when they were minor may vote under
the same condition RA 9189. The right as an absentee voter pertain only to the election of national officials: president,
vice president, senators and partylist representatives. Congress shall provide a system of secrecy and sanctity of the
ballot in addition to the absentee voting system. It shall be considered as an exception to the 6 months residency
requirement kasi wala nga sila dito. Specifically disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident who is recognized as
such in the host country because such status in another country implies that you have abandon your residence in the
Philippines to be a resident abroad. However, in that same question it allows an immigrant and permanent resident
abroad to register as a voter as long as he executes an affidavit to show that he did not abandon his domicile in the
Philippines pursuant to the constitutional intent on return.

When to vote?

We vote in several political several exercise:

 During election every 3 years for the local officials: sk and barangay depends on Congress on suspension, members
of the HOR, half of the members of the Senate. Every 6 years for president and vice president. Special elections in
case of vacancy in the middle of the term there must be a law on this. President and VP no special elections within
18 months preceding an election.

 Plebiscite usually this happens boto ay constitutional amendment or change. Whether in favour or not favour of the
proposed change.

 Initiative normally and usually laws are passed by Congress when it was delegated to them by the people. When
Congress exercises its power the people are exercising their sovereignty indirectly for having a republican or
representative government. Through this however the people can exercise their sovereignty directly through
amending or repealing or passing a law themselves.