Article III(3)Revised

A

RTICLE

III

B

ILL

OF

R

IGHTS

Bill of Rights

• It is a formal declaration or enumeration of the fundamental rights secured and guaranteed by the Constitution to the individuals.

•

It is a set of proscriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations

on those powers of government as a means of securing

the enjoyment of those rights.

Civil Rights

o Those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or in a wider sense to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the administration or administration of government. They include rights to property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract etc. They are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community.

o Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.

Political Rights

o

They refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, e.g., the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right to petition and, the general rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-à-vis the management of the government. (Simon v. CHR) • The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of

liberty, equality and security “against the assault of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those

who have no patience with general principles.” (quoted in Philippine Blooming Mills EO v. PBM)

•

Nature: Its nature is to protect individuals from arbitrary

exercise of governmental powers.

•

Self-executing. Generally, any governmental action in

violation of the Bill of Rights is void. These provisions are generally self-executing.

•

Note: In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003), the SC held that

the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative from the actual and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the EDSA revolution until the adoption on March 24, 1986, of the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution. During this period, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law, because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. Thus during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights, because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights at the time. However, the protection accorded to individuals under the ICCPR and the UDHR remained in effect during the interregnum.

Three great powers

(1) Police Power

(2) Power of eminent domain (3) Power of taxation

Police power

•

Definition: Police power is the power vested in legislature by

the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. (CJ Shaw)

•

Scope: Police power rests upon public necessity and upon

the right of the State and of the public to self-protection. For this reason, its scope expands and contracts with changing needs. (See US v. Toribio, Green Book at 102)

•

Characteristics: Police power has been characterized as

“the most essential, insistent and the least limitable powers, extending as it does to all great public needs.”Police power is considered the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. It is dynamic. It may also use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a legitimate police objective. (Cruz)

•

Exercise of police power: It is lodged primarily in the

national legislature.

•

Tests of police power (Cruz)

o Lawful subject- the activity of property sought to be regulated affects public welfare

o Lawful means-The means should be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Eminent domain

•

Definition: The right of the state to acquire property for

public use upon payment of just compensation.

•

Exercise of the power: Lodged primarily in the national

legislature, but its exercise may validly be delegated to other governmental entities. (Cruz)

Taxation

•

Definition: Taxation refers to the inherent power of the state

to demand enforced contributions for public purposes.

•

Scope: Taxation is so pervasive that it reaches even the

citizen is abroad and his income earned from source outside the State.

•

Exercise of the power: Primarily vested in the national

legislature, it may now also be exercised by the local legislative bodies in pursuant to a direct authority conferred by Article X, Section 51 _{of the Constitution. (Cruz)}

1 _{“Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources}

of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges, subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.”

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Person

• The due process clause protects all persons, natural as well as artificial. Natural persons include both citizens and the alien. (Cruz)

• Artificial persons like corporations and partnerships are also covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned. (Cruz citing Smith Bell & Co. v. Natividad) The reason for the narrower scope is that the life and liberty of artificial person, as a creature of law are derived from and therefore subject to control of the legislature. (Cruz)

Deprivation

• To deprive is to take away forcibly, to prevent from possessing, enjoying or using something. (Cruz citing Webster New World Dictionary)

• As applied to due process, deprivation connotes denial of the right to life, liberty or property. (Cruz)

Life

•

Life as understood under the due process clause connotes in the first place the integrity of the physical person. The meaning is that it is not permissible for the government to deprive the individual of any part of his body, and this is true even if it be as punishment for crime. (Cruz)

• Right to life is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one’s limb against physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good life. It is concerned with the quality of living- a life of dignity and decent standards of living. (Bernas)

•

Q: Do the unborn have a constitutional right to life? A: “The State …shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Article II Section 12) See Article 402 _{of the Family Code.}

Liberty

• Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong. (Mabini) • Liberty includes “the right to exist and the right to be free

from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. xxx It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways. (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro)

• Subject to only reasonable restrictions of the law, a person is free to do as he pleases. (Cruz)

• According to Justice Laurel, the chief elements of the guaranty are the right to labor, the right to contract, the right to choose one’s employment, and the right of locomotion. (Cruz quoting Rubi v. Prov.of Mindoro)

•

Scope: Physical, spiritual, and intellectual. It includes the

right to exist and to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or service. Freedom to enjoy his faculties to the restraints of common welfare.

• Strictly speaking, the right to association is already comprehended in due process, particularly as it protects the person’s liberty.

• Note: People do not have the right to bear arms. Only those authorized by law may bear arms. Even the provision in the American Constitution has reference only to a collective right

2 _{Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered}

born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided, it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article.

Due Process of Law Equal Protection of Law

of militia to bear arms. No similar provision is found in our Constitution. (Chavez. V. Executive Secretary)

Property

•

Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be subject of contract. Protected property includes all kinds of property found in the Civil Code. It has been deemed to include vested rights. It also include the right to work and the right to earn a living. (Cruz, Bernas) • It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes

the right to secure, use and dispose of them. (Torraco v. Thompson)

Protected Property

•

Profession is a property right. (Pilotage as a profession is a property right) (Corona v. UHPAP)

• The right to labor is property within the constitutional guarantee of due process (Batangas-Tayabas Bus Co. v. CA)

Absence of Protected Property

• Membership in the sangguiniang kabataan is not a property right protected by the Constitution, because it is a mere statutory right. (Montesclaros v. COMELEC)

•

Public office is not property, but one lawfully ousted from it may institute an action to recover the same, flowing from the de jure officer’s right to office (Nunez v. Averia) Indeed while the Court has recognized that while public office is not property to which one may acquire as vested right, it is nevertheless a protected right (Bince v. Comelec) One’s employment, profession or trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. Thus, an order of suspension, without opportunity for hearing, violates property rights. (Crespo v. Provincial Board) • A preventive suspension for an unreasonable length of time

violates due process. (Deloso v. Sandiganbayan)

•

Mere privileges, such as the license to operate a cockpit, are not property rights and are revocable at will (Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal) (I think this should not be taken as

an absolute statement)

•

Regulation. Property’s proper regulation has been upheld

as a legitimate subject of the police power of the State, particularly when its conduct affects eithere the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public morals (JMM Promotion and Management v. CA)

Absence of Violation

• Section 56 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act provides that property rights within ancestral domain already existing or vested shall be protected. The provision respects vested rights regardless of whether they pertain to indigenous or non-indigenous lands and ancestral domains. (Cruz v. Sec. of Environment and Natural Resources)

DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW

•

Origin: By the 39th _{chapter of the Magna Carta wrung by the}

barons from King John, the despot promised that “no man

shall be taken, imprisoned or disseized or outlawed, or in any manner destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send him, but by the lawful judgment of this peers or by the law of the land.” In 1335, King Edward III’s Stature 28 declared that “no

man, of what state or condition whoever be, shall be put out of his lands, or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor indicted, nor put to death, without he be brought in to answer by due process of law.” It is this immortal phrase that has resounded through the centuries as the formidable champion of life, liberty and property in all-freedom loving lands. (Cruz)

•

Definition: Embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.

(Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court pp 32-33) Responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience, to the dictates of justice. (Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motors Association v. City of Manila)

• Due process is a guaranty against arbitrariness on the part of the government.

• Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process (Tupas v. CA)

•

Who are protected: Universal in application to all persons,

without regard to any difference, in race, color or nationality. Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned (Smith Bell & Co v. Natividad) The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood. (Villegas v. Hiu Chiong)

Aspects of due process:

(1) Procedural (2) Substantive

Procedural due process

•

Procedural due process refers to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

• “Law which hears before it condemns” (Daniel Webster)

•

Basically means notice and opportunity to be heard. (+unbiased judge)

•

Note: Publication is imperative to the validity of laws, PD’s,

EO’s, administrative rules and regulations, and is indispensable part of due process.

• Purposes

(1) It contributes to accuracy and thus minimizes errors in deprivations.

(2) It gives the person so is subject of deprivation, a sense of rational participation in a decision that can affect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking person. (Bernas, Green Book at 116)

Notice

• Notice to a party is essential to enable it to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence submitted by the other party. Every litigant is entitled to his day in court. He has a right to be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to be present at every stage thereof so that he may be heard by himself and counsel for the protection of his interests. (Cruz, Constitutional Law)

Hearing/Opportunity to be heard

•

Due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing. A hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent. (Rural Bank of Buhi v. CA) (In this case, the SC said that, where there is an examination and a prima facie showing that a bank is insolvent, appointment of a receiver of a bank may be made without hearing because of the dire consequences of a prior hearing; bank runs would happen resulting in panic and hysteria.)

•

The ordinary requirements of procedural due process may yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests, through the exercise of police power. Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like stopping the continuous discharge of pollutants (Pollution Board v. CA)

• “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court. One may be heard also through pleadings. (Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan)

•

Where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or

quasi-judicial matter, and its acts are particular and

immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice and hearing. (PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz)

•

Fixing rates is quasi-judicial in nature. It must be

preceded by a hearing. The fact of the order being merely interlocutory does not alter the situation because for all practical purposes it is final as to the period covered. (PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz)

When hearing not required: (Ateneo Bar Ops Reviewer)

(1) When administrative agencies are exercising their quasi-legislative functions.

(2) Abatement of nuisance per se.

(3) Granting by courts of provisional remedies. (4) Cases of preventive suspension.

(5) Removal of temporary employees in government service.

(6) Issuance of warrants or distraint and/or levy by BIR Commissioner.

(7) Cancellation of the passport of a person charged with a crime.

(8) Issuance of sequestration orders (considered a provisional remedy)

(9) Judicial order which prevents an accused from traveling abroad to maintain the effectivity of the court’s decision. (10) Suspension of a bank’s operation by the Monetary Board upon a prima facie finding of liquidity problems in such bank.

•

As a general rule, notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions. (PHILCOMSAT v. Alcuaz)

•

In promulgation of general rules (Taxi-cab Operators v. Board of Transportation)

•

Provisional Rates. The NTC can provisionally approve

rates proposed by public services without need for hearing, but subject to hearing 30 days thereafter. It applies both to initial and revised rates (Radio Communications v. NTC) (Why? Provisional rates are, by their nature temporary and subject to adjustment after final hearing. It must be noted

that it is impossible for the NTC to send notices to all affected parties. The law does not require the impossible.

Moreover, may publication yata dito eh)

• Exercise of quasi-legislative power. (like price fixing) (Maceda v. ERB)

• Evaluation stage of extradition process (Sec. of Justice v. Lantion)

•

Note: The filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the

defect of absence of a hearing. (Chua v. CA)

Fair and impartial judge

• Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. (Castillo v. Juan)

• Elements of due process like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge. (Webb v. People)

•

Civil. The failure of the clerk to send the notice to the

defendant by mail did not destroy the jurisdiction of the Court and that such irregularity did not infringe the requirement of due process of law. (El Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)

•

Publicity and TV Coverage. To warrant a finding of

prejudicial publicity, there must be an allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced (not simply might be), by the barrage of publicity (Webb v. De Leon)

•

Administrative. Notice and hearing are essential only when

an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the performance of its rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. (Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association)

•

The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to

seek consideration of the ruling being complained of.

(Nachura citing Arboleda v. NLRC)

• Administrative due process does not require that the one who heard the evidence is also the one who heard the evidence is also the one who renders the decision (as long as the one who decides familiarized himself with the evidence) • If the decision is appealed, the person deciding the appealed

decision should not decide on the appeal.

•

Deportation. Although deportation proceedings are not

criminal in nature, the consequences can be as serious as those of a criminal prosecution. The provisions in the Rules of Court for criminal cases are applicable.

•

Extradition Proceedings. Individuals are bereft of the right

to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process because it is sui generis. (Sec. of Justice v. Lantion) The detention of a potential extraditee prior the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. Subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough.(Gov’t of US v. Purganan)

•

Academic Discipline. The proceedings in student discipline

may be summary and cross examination is not an essential pat thereof. (Guzman vs. N.U.). The contract between the school and student is not an ordinary contract(Non vs. Dames). The school has the right to determine the continuance of the schooling of a student applying their

academic and disciplinary standards.(Garcia vs. L.I.T.). However, penalties imposed by the schools must be commensurate to the offenses committees (Malabanan vs. Ramento).

• Q: If the Bill of Rights is invokable only against the State, why is there due process in academic proceedings? A: See Bernas Green Book at 116.

• STANDARDS

Proceedings Standard:

1.Civil El Banco Espanol Filipino v.

Palanca

2.Criminal Section 16 of Article III Rules of Court

3.Quasi-Judicial/ Administrative Ang Tibay vs. C.I.R. 4.Deportation Lao Gi v. Court of Appeals 5.Extradition Proceedings Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion 6.Academic De Guzman vs. N.U. (cited in

BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO VS. PALANCA

As applied to a judicial proceeding, the requirement of due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present:

1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it:

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings

Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by;

a. voluntary appearance of a party in court in submission to its authority

b. coercive power of legal process exerted over the person

Jurisdiction over property is acquired by:

a. seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law

b. institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special provisions of the laws, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective

3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard 4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

ANG TIBAY VS. C.I.R.

The following are the cardinal primary rights, which must be respected in proceedings, which is administrative or quasi-judicial in character;

1. The right to hearing, including the right to present one’s case and submit evidence.

2. The tribunal must consider the evidences presented 3. The decision must be supported

4. the evidence must be substantial

5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or contained at the record

6. The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration 7. The board/body must render decisions in such manner that the

parties in proceedings can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered

LAO GI VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Although the deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the constitutional right of a person to due process shall not be denied. The Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Rules of Court are applicable to deportation proceedings because it affects freedom and liberty of the person

Minimum Standards:

1. Determine if there’s sufficient cause to charge deportation 2. inform of the charges/ specific grounds for deportation

3. Hearing under the Rules of Procedure presented by the CID Commissioner

4. Order based on the determination of CID Commissioner

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. LANTION

An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding, which will call into operation all the rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

GUZMAN VS. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The proceedings in student discipline may be summary and cross examination is not an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process and these are that:

1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them

2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired

3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them

4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf 5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating

committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

Note: The proceedings in student discipline may be summary and cross examination is not an essential part thereof. (Guzman vs. N.U.). The contract between the school and student is not an ordinary contract(Non

vs. Dames). The school has the right to determine the continuance of the schooling of a student applying their academic and disciplinary standards.(Garcia vs. L.I.T.). However, penalties imposed by the schools must be commensurate to the offenses committees (Malabanan vs. Ramento).

Substantive Due Process

•

Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property. (Cruz, Constitutional Law)

•

The requirement of substantive due process is not a rigid concept. The heart to of substantive due process is the requirement of “reasonableness” or absence of exercise of arbitrary power. These are necessarily relative concepts which depend on the circumstances of every case.

Requirements to pass substantive due process:

(1) Lawful subject or purpose- the law must be a valid governmental objective- the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class.

(2) Lawful means- means employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive.

Other requirements:

(1) must not contravene the constitution or a “higher” statute

(2) must not be partial or discriminatory (3) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (4) must not be unfair or oppressive

(5) must be general and consistent with public policy (6) must not be unreasonable

Requirement of Publication (Jack’s Compendium)

• Publication may not be dispensed with. Such omission would violate due process as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern them. The publication must be in full or its no publication at all. (Tanada v. Tuvera)

Presumption

• There is a presumption of validity when the State acts to interfere with life, liberty or property. (“Prior restraint” not included)

Hierarchy of rights

•

Human Rights and Right to life are superior to right to property. (Philippine Blooming Mills)

Void for vagueness

• When is a law vague?

(1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of the conduct to avoid.

(2)

It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions.

• When a statute lacks a comprehensible standard, it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially persons targeted by it, fair notice of conduct to avoid, and it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of government muscles (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan)

Q: Is PP 1017 vague?

A: A facial review on the ground of vagueness is unwarranted.

Void for vagueness doctrine hold that “a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” (In her ponencia, J

Sandoval Guttierez said void for vagueness doctrine “is also an analytical tool for testing ‘on their faces’ statues in free speeches.” However, Justice Tinga dissents on this matter thus “the void for vagueness doctrine applies to criminal laws and not merely those that regulate speech or other fundamental constitutional right.” Justice Tinga disagrees that the “void for vagueness doctrine” is inapplicable in no-free speech cases)

(David v. Arroyo)

•

A government purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

Q: Is PP 1017 overbroad?

A: A facial review of PP 1017 using the over the overbreadth

doctrine is uncalled for because:

(1)

The overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing “on their faces” statutes in free speeches. (A plain

reading of PP 1017 shows it is not primarily directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon AFP to prevent to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence)

(2)

The overbreadth doctrine is not intended

for testing the validity of a law that “reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. (PP

1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is manifestly subject to state regulation)

(3) The facial invalidation of laws is

considered “manifestly strong

medicine” to be used “sparingly and only as a last resort” and is generally disfavored.”

(4)

A facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth doctrine is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that there can be no instance when the assailed law may be valid. (David v. Arroyo)

Cases:

•

Police power cannot interfere with private property for purely aesthetic purposes. (Churchill vs. Rafferty)

•

The state may not under the guise of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. (People vs Fajardo)

•

The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. (Ermita-Malate vs. City Mayor)

•

If the movement and not the slaughter is banned and carabaos are arbitrarily confiscated, then that what constitute violation of due process of law. (Ynot vs IAC)

•

The legislature may not under the guise of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private business for it is a property right of the owner. Theaters, cinematographs and other exhibitions cannot be considered as public utilities. (Balacuit vs. CFI)

•

Promoting safe transit upon and avoid obstruction on roads and streets is a valid governmental interest. (Agustin Vs. Edu)

•

An ordinance must not contravene the constitution or any statutes. (Magtajas vs. Prce Properties Corp.)

•

The State is not required to compensate the owner for property which it has already lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain. (Bennis vs. Michigan)

•

The due process requirement does not require the state to accept the “substitute judgment” of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient’s. However, it may require clear and convincing evidence of the patient’s wishes, it may also choose to defer only those wishes rather than confide the decisions to close family members. (Cruzan vs. Missouri Department of Health)

•

Profession is a legitimate subject of police power. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonably regulatory

standard no such deprivation of property exists. (JMM Promotion and Management vs. CA)

•

A statute must satisfactorily show the presence of compelling state interest and that the law, rule or regulation is narrowly drawn to preclude abuses.( Ople vs. Torres)

•

Public officers is not a property right but a privilege and a public trust. (Montesclaros vs. COMELEC)

•

The absence of publication is fatal as held in Tañada vs. Tuvera. Even if a Manual of Operation is internal in nature, if its effects reach out other than its employees then it must be published. (Pilipinas Kao vs. CA)

•

In Tañada vs. Tuvera, it was said that all statutes including those of local application and private laws shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees, executive orders, administrative rules and regulations in so far they enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and letter of instructions issued by administrative superiors need not be published. Whether or not the circular addresses a small group or not, the fact that it is an administrative circular which enforces laws, makes publication imperative. (Philsa vs. Sec of Labor)

Equal Protection

• Definition: The equal protection clause is a specific

constitutional guarantee of the equality of person . The

equality it guarantees is “ legal equality ” or the equality of all persons before the law.

(Under it, each individual is dealt with as an equal person in the law, which does not treat the person differently because of what he is or what he possesses. The goddess of justice is portrayed as blindfold, not because she must be hindered in seeing where right lies, but that she may not discriminate against suitors before her, dispensing instead and even handed justice all.)

“All persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike, both as to rights and responsibilities.

Equality among equals” Scope of Equality (Nachura Outline)

Economic Political Social

(5)

Free access to courts [Art III, Sec. 11]

(6)

Marine Wealth

reserved for

Filipino citizens [Art XII, Section 2(2)] (7) Reservation of certain areas of investments [Art XII, Section 10] (8) Reduction of social, economic and political inequities [Article XIII, Secs. 1, 2 and 3]

See

Ichong v. Hernandez, Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, Dumlao v. Comelec. Tan v. Del Rosario

(1) Free access to courts [Art III, Sec 11] (2) Bona fide candidates being free from harassment and discrimination [Art IX-C, Sec 10]

(3)

Reduction of social, economic and political inequalities [Article XIII, Sec. 1]

(1)

Reduction of social, economic and political inequalities [Article XIII, Sec. 1]

Scope of Protection.

•

The protection is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not. Artificial persons are also

entitled to the guarantee, although they may be required to open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of police and taxing powers. (See Moncada v. People’s Court)

•

The right is personal; it may be invoked only by the person

entitled to it (Stonehill v. Diokno) As such, the right may be waived (Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs)

•

Reasonable Classification allowed. Equal protection does

not prohibit classification as long as it is based on REASONABLE classification.

•

When a classification considered reasonable.

A classification is considered to be reasonable when:

(1)

Classification rests on substantial distinction;

(2)

Classification is germane to the purpose of the law;

(3)

Classification is not limited to the existing conditions only; and

(4)

Classification applies equally to all members of the same class. (People v. Cayat)

Note:

• The Constitution does not require absolute equality. A classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the equal protection clause. (Tiu v. CA)

• What is important is that the classification is not arbitrary (Sison v. Ancheta)

• He who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness

Cases of valid classification

•

Mode of Public Transportation. A regulation that prohibits

any car beyond six years to operate as taxi is valid. Taxis are reasonably distinct from other modes of public transportation. The regulation is applicable to all taxis of the country. (Taxicab Operators v. BOT)

•

Taxing one particular class. Compensation earners v. Professionals. The equal protection clause tolerates

inequalities arising from reasonable singling out of one particular class for taxation. Taxpayers who are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As they do not have to pay overhead expenses, they are not entitled to make deductions from income tax purposes which is not the case of professionals in practice of their calling and businessmen. In the case of the latter, there is no uniformity in the cost or expenses necessary to produce their income. (Sison v. Ancheta)

•

Occupation. The equal protection clause does not mean

that all occupation called by the same name are treated the same way. (Basco v. PAGCOR; Gambling case)

• There is dissimilarities between land-based and sea-based Filipino overseas workers in terms of work environment, safety, dangers and risks to life and limb and accessibility to social, civic and spiritual activities. (The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA)

•

Compulsory retirement based on age. Employees

attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement because of the need for new blood. (Dumlao v. COMELEC)

•

Radio/Television v. News papers. There are important

differences in the characteristics of the two media. Radio and television has more impact on people than newspapers. (TELEBAP vs. Comelec)

•

Big investors in the secured area v. Business operators outside the area. There are substantial differences between

the big investors who are lured to establish their industries in the “secured area” compared to business operators outside the area.

On one hand, we are talking of billion-peso investments, on the other, definitely none of such magnitude. The first can give economic impact that is national in scope, the other, merely local.

(The real concern of RA 7227 is to convert the lands formerly occupied by the US military bases in to economic or industrial areas. In furtherance of such objective, Congress deemed it necessary to extend economic incentives to attract and encourage investors) (Tiu v. CA)

Cases of invalid classification

•

Employees with the same rank and position. A practice of

giving higher pay for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank is unconstitutional. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires that persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. If the employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. (International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing)

•

Imposition of tax by name. Imposition of a tax on an entity

by name is not valid even if it’s the only existing entity in the industry. Should another entity arise, the imposition would be discriminatory on the first named entity. (Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City)

ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

•

Public Officers. The office of the Ombudsman is different

from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the

government because the subject of its jurisdiction are public officials who through official pressure and influence can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. (Almonte v. Vasquez)

•

PNP officers. A law providing for a preventive suspension

for members of the PNP beyond 90 days until the case is decided is valid. The PNP officers are treated differently from other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as preventive suspension is concerned. It was said that policeman who carry weapon and the badge of law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them needs to be suspended in order to protect his victim and the witnesses against him. (Himagan v. People)

•

Municipal Election Officers. There is a substantial

distinction between municipal/city election officers and other COMELEC officials. The singling out of city and municipal election officers (as prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more than 4 years) in order to “ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment” justifies the distinction. (The purpose of the law is to break an important link in the chain of corruption. It is safe to say that without the complicity of such officials, large-scale anomalies in the registration of voters can hardly be carried out. (De Guzman v. COMELEC)

•

Official duty for purpose of detention. The performance of

legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. Functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions, which lift the accused from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. (People v. Jalosjos)

•

Elective v Appointive Officials. Substantial distinctions

exist between appointive and elective officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate.

They are elected to an office foe a definite term and may be removed only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation by an appointing authority. (Fariñas v. Executive Secretary)

ON WOMEN

•

Bartending. A law prohibiting women from bartending to

protect the morals of women is valid. The physical and psychological differences between men and women make the difference reasonably related to the valid purpose. (Goesart v, Cleary)

•

Teaching. A law prohibiting women from becoming teachers

is invalid. The distinction between men and women serves no valid purpose. (Bernas Primer)

•

Marriage. A company’s policy of not accepting or

considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage violate women’s right against discrimination afforded by the Constitution. (PT&T v. NLRC)

ON ALIENS

•

Retail Trade. A law passed prohibiting aliens from engaging

in the retail trade for the purpose of addressing a demonstrated harmful stranglehold by aliens on the retail trade is valid. The distinction made between citizen and aliens is substantial and reasonably related to the valid purpose, because citizens own greater allegiance to the state and conversely the State owes greater protection to its citizens. (Ichong v. Hernandez)

•

Specific Nationality. A law prohibiting Chinese only from

engaging in retail trade is not valid unless the distinction between Chinese and other aliens in relation to the purpose of the law can be justified. (Bernas Primer)

• There is no logic in exacting the payment of fifty pesos from aliens who have already secured a clearance for

employment. Fee is unreasonable, because it is excessive and it fails to consider substantial differences in the situation of the aliens required to pay it. The same amount is collected from every alien, whether he is casual or permanent, part-time or full-part-time, a lowly employee or a highly paid executive. (Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Pao Ho)

•

There is a difference in a resident and non-resident alien. (General Milling Corporation v. Torres)

ON THE POOR

•

Free transcript of records. A law requiring courts to give

free transcript of records to indigent litigants is valid. The classification serves to equalize opportunities in courts between rich and poor.

•

Running for Public Office. A law prohibiting indigents from

running for public office is not valid.

•

Different groups may receive different treatments. Statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled and the less fortunate. (Binay v. Domingo)

On TAXATION

•

Tax must not be passed for a specific entity only for it will not be applicable to future conditions as well. (Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City)

• Inequalities which result from the singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation. There is a difference between a “homeless poor’ and the “homeless less poor” because the second group or middle class can afford to rent houses in the meantime that they cannot buy yet their own houses. The two social classes are thus differently situated in life. (Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance)

•

Taxpayers who are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As they do not have to pay overhead expenses, they are not entitled to make deductions for

income tax purposes which are not the case of professionals in practice of their calling and businessmen. In the case of the latter, there is no uniformity in the costs or expenses necessary to produce their income. (Sison v. Ancheta)

• Special grant of tax exemption in favor of Marcos heirs will constitute class legislation. (Chavez v. PCGG)

•

There is reasonable classification under the LGC to justify the different tax treatment between electric cooperatives that are registered with the NEA and those under CDA. (Philreca v. Sec. of DILG)

Other cases

•

Revenue of a city. A law classifying a city as a highly

urbanized city on the basis of its regular annual income (thus depriving residents of a vote in provincial elections) is valid. Classification based on income is classification based on substantial distinction. Revenue of a city shows its capability to subsist in relative economy. (Ceniza v. COMELEC)

•

Dismissal of a case. Dismissal of a case against one

defendant must apply to other if no reasonable differences exist. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan)

•

Prosecution. It is unfair to exempt a similarly situated litigant

from prosecution without allowing the same exemption to others. (Regala v. Sandiganbayan)

•

Denial of privilege. There is no basis however why all the

departments, it would be the judiciary that has been denied of the franking privilege. (Philippine Judges Association vs. Pardo)

•

Payment of civil liability. Payment of civil liability is not

made a condition precedent to probation but is a condition for his continued enjoyment of the same. Probation is not an absolute right. It is a mere privilege whose grant rests upon discretion of the trial court. (Soriano vs. C.A.)

•

Death Penalty. The death penalty law applies to all persons

and to all classes of persons – rich, poor, educated or

uneducated, religious or non-religious. No particular group or classes of persons are identified by the law against whom the death penalty shall be exclusively imposed. (People vs. Mercado)

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Purpose of the Provision

• The purpose is to protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and of his house and other possessions against arbitrary intrusions by the State officers.

Scope

• The provision does not prohibit all kinds of searches and seizure, only those which are unreasonable.

•

Section 2 of Article III does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. The proscription applies only against the

government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. (People v. Marti; Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC)

(But see Zulueta v. CA)

SEARCH

• Search is an examination of a man’s house or other

buildings or premises, or of the person, or of his vehicle with a view to the discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen property or some evidence of guilt to be use in the prosecution of a criminal action for some crime or offense. • [Mere looking at what was in the sala and the kitchen of the

house to see if a penknife was there cannot be strictly considered as a search (People vs. Ella, et al., C.A. 49 O.G. 1891)]

• When searches are reasonable. Searches are reasonable

when they are authorized by agencies entitled to direct such searches. A reasonable search is not to be determined by a fixed formula but it is to be resolved according to the facts of each case (Valmonte vs De Villa citing foreign jurisprudence)

•

The provision does not prohibit all search and seizures. What is prohibited are unreasonable search and seizures.

Checkpoints

• Legality. Checkpoints are not illegal per se. Under

exceptional circumstances(as where the survival of the government is on the balance, or when lives of the people are in grave peril) checkpoints may be allowed and may be installed by the government.(Valmonte vs. De Villa)

• Not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. (People v. Escaño) • When considered legal. For as long as the vehicle is

neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks are not constitutive of unreasonable search. (People v. Escaño)

• Requirements for Checkpoints:

(1) Existence of exceptional circumstances (2) conducted on a fixed area

(3) inspection limited to visual search Freedom from unreasonable

Search and Seizure Freedom from unreasonable arrest

(4) occupants must not subjected to physical or body search (Caballes vs. CA)

• Illustration. For, example, the officer merely draws aside the

curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light therein. A warantless search of incoming and outgoing passengers, at the arrival and departure areas of an international airport, is a practice not constitutionally objectionable because it is founded on public interest, safety, and necessity. (Valmonte vs. DeVilla)

• Q: Can vehicles be stopped and extensively searched?

A: If vehicles are stopped and extensively searched, it

should be because of some probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief of men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. (Valmonte vs. De Villa)

• Q: Where can warrant less searches and seizures in checkpoints be compared to?

A: These warrantless searches and seizures at the

checkpoints are quite similar to searches and seizures accompanying arrests during the commission of a crime, or immediately thereafter. (Valmonte vs. De Villa)

• Q: Must checkpoints be announced?

A: No. Not only would it be impractical, it would also

forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which they are operated. (People v. Escano, 2000)

Areal Zoning and Saturation Drives

• Under ordinary circumstances, such would be illegal and violative of the Bill of Rights. But under extra ordinary circumstances (i.e. overriding social need e.g. unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, alarming communist activities)

such can be done, provided it is with stringent procedural safeguards. (Guazon vs. De Villa)

Search Warrant

•

It is

(1) an order in writing

(2) issued in the name of the Republic of the Phils. (3) issued by a judge

(4) directed to a peace officer

(5) commanding him to search for personal property described therein and

(6) to bring it before the court

• Objects of the search warrant

(1) for subject of the offense

(2) for stolen or embezzled and/or proceeds or fruits of the offense

(3) used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

•

Proper procedure for search warrants

:

1) police submits affidavits before a judge

2) judge should be stationed in RTC with jurisdiction over the property to be searched

3) judge interviews the applicant for the warrant and if the judge determines probable cause, the warrant is issued. 4) Object seized is deposited in court

5) fiscal files a case in court

ARREST

•

Arrest is the depriving of a person of his liberty done by

legal authority.

•

Warrant of arrest is a written order which is made in behalf

to a statute and/or court rule and which commands law enforcement officers to arrest a person and bring him before a magistrate.

•

Burden of Proof. The burden of proof to validity of a warrant

or its reasonableness falls upon the government.

•

Scope of guarantee. It is available to all persons, including

aliens, whether accused of a crime or not. Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantees although they may be required to open books of accounts for examination as required by the State in its exercise of police power of taxation. As a rule however, the premises may not be searched not their papers and effects seized except by virtue of a valid warrant.

Persons- applies to everybody, to citizens as well as aliens

in the Phils., natural or artificial.

Houses- is not limited to dwelling houses but extends to

garages, warehouses, shops, stores, offices, and even safety deposit boxes. It does not however include open spaces and spaces belonging to an individual.

Papers and effects- include sealed letters and packages in

the mail which may be opened and examined only in pursuance of a valid search warrant.

• Requisites

Constitutional: See Section 2 Article III

Statutory: Must not be for more than one specific offense

(Revised Rules of Court)

• Proper procedure for obtaining arrest warrants:

1) a complaint, usually by affidavit, is first filed with the fiscal’s office.

2) fiscal then issued a subpoena addressed to the respondent to submit a counter affidavit.

3) fiscal then determined whether there is prima facie case evidence to file an information in court.

4) judge determines whether or not to issue a warrant

PROBABLE CAUSE

•

Probable cause means such facts and circumstances

antecedent to the issuance of a warrant, that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof. (People vs. Sy Juco)

•

Probable cause for arrest. Such facts and circumstances

which should lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

•

Probable cause for search. Such facts and circumstances

that would lead a discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection of the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

Other points about Probable Cause:

1) Probable cause must be defined in relation to the action which it justifies.

2) Probable cause means probable cause of something specific.

3) What is required is not absolute certainty nor proof beyond reasonable doubt but probable cause.

4) Probable cause must be based upon personal knowledge of the applicant or witness.

5) Probable cause is a factual and practical concept which is not necessarily technical.

6) Only the judge and the judge alone can determine probable cause. (except deportation of aliens)(Placer).

• “Determined personally” This means that the judge

conducting the examination must do it in person and not through a commissioner or a deputy clerk of court (Bache case).

• It is not required that the judge personally examine the complainant and witnesses. He may personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause (Soliven vs. Makasiar). However, he cannot solely rely on the certification of the fiscal in the absence of the report and necessary documents that will support such certification (Lim vs. Felix). • Oath. It is an outward pledge given by the person taking it

that his attestation or promise is made under immediate sense of responsibility to God.(Alvarez vs. CFI)

• Affirmation. A solemn and formal declaration that an

affidavit is true, this being substituted for an oath in certain cases. Here, there is no invocation of God or a supreme being.

• Particularity of description.

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio); or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure(People vs. Rubio); or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Revised Rules of Court).

The description must not be too general as to give the executing officer too much discretion that even those that do not bear direct relation to the offense may be seized. (Stonehill vs. Diokno). However, where by nature of goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is

not required that a technical description be given (People vs. Rubio).

•

General Warrant. A general warrant is one that does not

allege any specific acts of omissions constituting the offense charged in the application for the issuance of the warrant. It contravenes the explicit demand of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described.

•

John Doe Warrant. John Doe warrant satisfies the

requirement of particularity of description provided it contains a description personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. (People vs. Veloso)

•

However, it must be noted that John Doe warrants must be the exception not the rule. Generally, the warrant must clearly indicate the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served by stating his personal appearance and peculiarities, his occupation and place of residence and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified.

• There is however a limit to John Doe warrants. Thus a warrant for the arrest of fifty John Does is of the nature of a general warrant which does not satisfy the requirement of particularity description (Pangandaman vs. Casar).

Exclusionary rule

•

Any evidence obtained without a warrant, by authority of invalid warrant (and not falling to valid exceptions) shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Section

3(2) of Article III)

• Exclusionary rule is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Stonehill v. Diokno)

•

To come under exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by government agents and not by private individuals acting on their own such as in the case of People v. Marti.

• Even if a vessel security is armed and tasked to maintain peace and order, he is still a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function. (People v. Bongcarawan)

•

BUT See Zulueta vs. CA: “The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other. A person, by contracting marriage does not shed his/her right to privacy as an individual.”

• Goods illegally seized must be returned unless the possession of such goods is prohibited by law (Castro v. Judge Pabalan)

•

Firearms which have been illegally seized in a “zona” is inadmissible in evidence. Pending the determination of the legality of such articles, they shall remain in custodia legis, subject to such appropriate disposition as the corresponding courts may decide. (Alih v. Castro)

•

It is not required that the property to be searched be owned by the person against whom the search is directed. It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff)

•

The objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. (Stonehill v. Diokno)

• The moment imported goods are in possession or control of Customs, even if seized without warrant, the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over the goods, subject only to appeal to the proper tax court and to the Supreme Court. (Collector of Customs v. Judge Villaluz) • An application for a bail has no effect of waiver of the right to

challenge the validity of a warrant. (Okabe v. Judge de Leon, 2004, page 46 of 2006 Bernas Primer)

• Allowable warrantless searches

(1) Incidental to lawful arrest (Sec 12, Rule 126 of Rules of Court)

(2) Plain view (3) Moving vehicle

(4) Consented warantless searches (5) Customs Searches

(6) Stop and Frisk (Terry v. Ohio; Posadas v. CA; Malacat v. CA)

(7) Exigent and Emergency Circumstances (People v. De Gracia)

(8) RA 6235, Search pursuant to routine airport security Procedure

(9) Others

[a] Armed Conflict.

[b] Areal Target zone and Saturation Drives in the exercise of military powers of the President. (Guazon v. De Villa) [c] Checkpoints (Valmonte v. De Villa)

SECTION 2-FREEDOM FROM SEARCH

EXCEPTION: If search is reasonable

A. With a valid warrant

(1)Requirements:

(1) issued upon probable cause

(2) personally examined by the judge

(3) Examined under oath and affirmation

(4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized(Section 2 Article III)

(5) warrant must not be for more than one offense (Revised Rules of Court)

(2) Warrant for administrative inspection

B. Without a valid warrant

(1) Incidental to lawful arrest (Sec 12, Rule 126 of Rules of Court) (2) Plain view (3) Moving vehicle (4) Consented warantless searches (5) Customs Searches (6) Stop and Frisk

(7) Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

(8) RA 6235 (People v. Canton)

(9) Others

[a] Armed Conflict.

[b] Areal Target zone and Saturation Drives in the exercise of military powers of the President. (Guazon v. De Villa) [c] Checkpoints (Valmonte

v. De Villa)

C. Without warrant (by a

private individual)

(1) SOP (People vs. Marti) (2) Security Check (People vs Bongcarawan)

D. Of other nature or purpose

(See Bernas, Green Book p 179)

(1) Subpoena duces tecum

[(2) Administrative Inspection] (Nachura: Inspection of

buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations is basically an exercise of police power of the State, and would not require a search warrant. These are routine inspection which, however, must be conducted during reasonable hours.)