BE SEARCHED AND THINGS OR PERSONS TO BE SEIZED NOT REQUIRED the constitution does not require

that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities; TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT REQUIRED- It is only necessary that there be reasonable

certainty or particularity as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. THE TEST as would be as to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. VALLEJO VS. CA, 427 SCRA 658, April 14, 2004. - Administrative arrest-Causes:

i. If you breach peace or if you are

planning to do so, you can be arrested but only if it is absolutely necessary to do so. You will be freed as soon as you no longer represent a threat to public security.

ii. If you disrupt a court hearing;

iii. If you are in a drunken state on the public highway;

iv. In case of brawling;

v. If you block traffic without authorization;

vi. If you refuse to give your ID documents or if these are questionable;

vii. If you are in the country illegally.

Section 3- Privacy of communication & correspondence-

- In the matter of petition for habeas corpus of Capt. G.

Alejano, et al. vs. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005-

The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees and their lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees’ personal courier and not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing. In the present case, since the letters were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters. If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees. That a law is

required before an executive officer could intrude on a citizen’s privacy rights is a guarantee that is available only to the public at large but not to persons who are detained or imprisoned. The right to privacy of those detained is subject to

Section 4 of RA 7438, as well as to the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the very fact of their

detention, pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy rights.

- Roxas vs. Zuzuarregei, June 12, 2007- To prevent liability from attaching on account of his letter, he invokes his rights to free speech and privacy of communication. The invocation of these rights will not, however, free him from liability. As already stated, his letter contained defamatory statements that impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefor and confidence therein. Free expression must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one’s irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates.

- Right to Privacy – Re Iggy Arroyo’s right to privacy ( the

right to be let alone) Read: PP vs. Molina, et al., - right to privacy may be waived by the defendant).

Basis: It is expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights:Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, viz: Sections1; 2; 6; 8; and 17. Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to

dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act and the Intellectual Property Code. The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain information. (Ople vs. Torres, July 23, 1998.

- In the matter of petition for habeas corpus of Camilo Sabio,

October 17, 2006- In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

- SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board and PDEA, GR No. 157870,

November 3, 2008- Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional

the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office and persons accused of crimes. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the said RA insofar as random drug testing for secondary and tertiary school students, as well as for officials and employees of public and private offices is concerned. The need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual’s privacy interest under the premises.

- Read: Ayer Productions vs. Capulong- The right of privacy or the right to be let alone is not an absolute right where the person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute matters of a public character.

-Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699- The only exception to the prohibition in the constitution is if there is a “lawful order from a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law”.

-Relate to emails and other ways of communication.

-RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act)-A violation of the Anti Wire Tapping Law (R.A. 4200) which prohibits not only the unauthorized taping of private conversations, but also: (a) the possession of such tapes with the knowledge of their nature as illegal wiretaps; (b) the replaying of the tapes to any person; and (c) to communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in writing, such as the provision of transcripts. The potential jail term, if convicted, ranges from six months to six years.

- RA No. 9372 (Human Security Act)- The provisions of RA

4200 to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to intercept, and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Provided, that surveillance,

interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.