SECTION 2 When is a search a search? SJS v.

DDB (2008) Reasonableness is the touc hstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion Criminal context requires probable cause, administrative search do not Requisites of a Valid Warrant People v. Veloso (1925) John Doe warrants are void unless it contains descriptio personae sufficient to clearly indicate the person, also other circumstances like occupation, appearance, peculiarities, residence, etc. Alvarez v. Court of First Instance (1937) Search warrant order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer to s earch for personal property and bring to court Search warrant is void because applicant has no personal knowledge (there should be another witness) Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) Objection t o unlawful searc h is purely personal juridical persons have the cause of action, not the individual No specific offens e had been allegedimpossible for the judge to found probable cause Exclusion Rule: abandonment of the Moncado ruling Central Bank v. Morfe (1967) Search warrant The law requiring compliance with certain requirements before anybody can engage in banking obviously seeks to protect the public against actual, as well as potential, injury the case does not involve mere isolated transaction, thus, no need to mention particular individuals Bache & Co., Inc. v. Ruiz (1971) Search warrant Task to personally examine the complainant and the witness cannot be delegated SW should be issued for only one offense Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP (1984) Search warrant Typographical error: executing officer is the affiant on the affidavit for warrant, thus have prior knowledge of the place Need not be owned, as long as the accused have control or possession Supporting affidavits must include specification, mere generalization would not suffice

Soliven v. Makasiar (1988) Arrest warrant Exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause: 1. Personally examine the report of the fiscal with supporting documents and issue a warrant of arrest 2. If no probable cause, may disregard fiscals report and require submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid with the determination of probable cause Lim, Sr. v. Judge Felix (1991) Arrest warrant Judge may not issue a warrant of arrest my simply relying on a prosecut ors certification and recommendation that probable cause exists People v. Inting: 1. Determination of probable cause is function of the judge 2. Inquiry made by the prosecut or does not bind the judge 3. PI for warrant of arrest different from PI which ascertains whether the accused should be tried or released Silva v. Presiding Judge (1991) Search warrant Judge, being issuing SW, should determine whet her there is probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses through searching questions and answers (not merely mimeographed, not leading nor broad) Allado v. Diokno (1994) Search warrant Court was unable to see how the judge was able to come up with the ruling records show that nothing supported the decision Ortiz v. Palaypayon (1994) Arrest warrant Police investigator cannot conduct preliminary investigation, thus cannot rely on the inquiry made by it should not resort to short-cuts People v. Martinez (1994) Arrest warrant Discrepancy in the name cannot militate against his positive identification by the poseur-buyer identity already established Rules on Criminal Procedure: can provide for fictitious name if true name is unknown Webb v. De Leon (1995) Arrest warrant Sec. 6, Rule 112 of Criminal Procedure: upon filing of an information, RTC may issue a warrant for arrest of the accused No law requiring the issuanc e of an order of arrest prior to warrant of arrest JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

Not measured by merely counting the minutes and time

People v. Woolcock (1995) Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (1996) Arrest warrant There should be a report and necessary documents supporting the fiscals bare certification but here nothing accompanied the information wit h the trial court, no affidavits or transcript 20 Century Fox Film Corp. v. Court of Appeals (1988) Search warrant Lifted the search warrant because the Court acted upon the misrepresentation of the NBI that infringement was committed (no personal knowledge) Ho v. People (1997) Arrest warrant Emphasized 3 vital matters: 1. Determination of the probable cause by the prosecut or is different from that made by the judge 2. Different objectives, thus, the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecut or in justifying probable cause 3. Not required that the complete/entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted and examined by the judge (sufficient supporting documents) Govt of USA v. Purganan (2002) Arrest warrant (extradition) No requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest judges just have to have sufficient supporting documents upon to make independent judgment People v. Francisco (2002) Search warrant The controlling subject of the searc h warrant is the place indicated, not the place identified Sony v. Espanol (2005) Search warrant No personal knowledge: initial hearsay information or tips from confidential informants can be basis if followed up by personally validating Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004) Search warrant Probability, not absolute or even moral certainty Description need not be technic ally accurate or precise
th

Yousef Al-Ghoul v. CA (2001) Search warrant Law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute details Uy v. BIR (2000) Search warrant Description of the place: any description or designation known to the locality that points out the place and on inquiry leads the officers to it Vallejo v. CA (2004) Search warrant Description of the place or thing to be searched that will enable the officer with reas onable certainty and particularity to locate the plac e or thing is sufficient People v. Nunez (2009) Search warrant Only personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong (2010) Search warrant Probability and not absolute or moral certainty, there were good reasons to believe that respondents committed the crime People v. Tuan (2010) Search warrant Del Castillo v. People (2012) Search warrant: nipa hut outside permissible area HPS Software v. PLDT (2012) Search warrant Only probable cause is needed: affidavits and other evidences more than sufficient to support that test was done by PLDT Warrantless Searches and Seizures Roan v. People (1986) Mala prohibitum : motive is immaterial but the subjects may not be summarily seized search warrant is still necessary MHP Garments, Inc. v. CA (1994) Unreasonable: Time bet ween the receipt of information and raid was sufficient to apply for judicial warrant Spouses Veroy v. Layague (1992) Invalid: permission was given only to ascertain the presence of rebels and not room-to-room search People v. Aruta (1998) Invalid: no probable cause not lawfully arrested Lawful arrest must precede the s earc h of a person and his belongings

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

People v. Racho (2010) No probable cause: must also perform some overt act for commission of offense, indicative of criminal design People v. Aminola (2010) Valid: warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection to it is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST Nolasco v. Pano (1987) Not incidental to lawful arrest People v. Aminnudin (1988) Invalid: merely descending from M/V Wilcon 9 and no outward indication that called for arrest Name known, vehicle identified and date of arrival was certain People v. Malmstedt (1991) Valid: crime was committed transporting prohibited drugs Probable cause: based on reports, failure of the accused to present papers arouse suspicion Dissent: no other reasonable persuasive indications; fact of illegal possession retroactively established the probable cas e that validated the illegal search People v. De Los Reyes (2011) Failed to justify probable cause the in flagrante delicto arrest and search incidental to such arrest Requisites: 1. Must exercise an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime 2. Overt act done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer Luz v. People (2012) Invalid: when flagged down for traffic violation, one is not arrested (only confiscation of license is needed, not arrest) AIRPORT SEARCH People v. Canton (2002) RA 6235: holder of ticket of air carrier subject to search and seizure of prohibited materials Less of expectation of privacy in the airports ARTICLES IN PLAIN VIEW Fajardo v. People (2011) Requisites: 1. Law enforcement officers has prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area 2. Discovery is inadvertent (accidental) 3. Immediately apparent that the item may be an evidence of a crime, contraband or other subject to seizure

MOVING VEHICLES People v. Lo Ho Wing (1991) Valid: hard to describe with particularity and not practicable as it can quickly move out Aniag v. COMELEC (1994) Invalid: no probable cause, nothing to trigger the suspicion Vehicle should neither be searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search and inspection is limited to visual search Mustang Lumber v. CA (1996) Valid: Seizure of the cargo was valid exercise of power vested upon forest officer or employee by Sec. 80 of PD 705 Asuncion v. CA (1999) Valid: situation demanded immediate action; sought the permission of the petitioner to search the car to which he agreed STOP-AND-FRISK OPERATIONS Posadas v. CA (1990) Determine the identity of suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police seeks to obtain more information Terry v. Ohio: investigating possible criminal behavior and search for concealed weapon Malacat v. CA (1997) Suspicion and hunch will not validate it but a genuine reason must exist Reasons for stop-and-frisk: 1. Effective crime prevention and detection 2. Safety and self-preservation of the police officer to assure that the person is unarmed Manalili v. CA (1997) E ven though marijuana is not a weapon, SAFO used also for drugs Valid: probable cause because of suspicious behavior and characteristic of being high Esquillo v. People (2010) Valid: saw in plain view, given their training, instinctive to draw curiosity SAFO: Introduce himself, initial inquiries, restrain a person with suspicious conduct to check the outer clothing for concealed weapons TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE Papa v. Mago (1968) TCC does not require search warrant: search land, enclos ure, warehouse, store or building, not being dwelling house, to stop and search vehicles reasonable suspected of holding/ conveying such articles People v. CFI of Rizal Br. IX (1980) Except in cases of dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

may effect search and seizure without search warrant for enforcement of customs law EXIGENT AND URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES People v. De Gracia (1994) Valid: had no opportunity to apply for warrant (simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the officecourts were obviously closed) of whatever nature and for whatever purpose Material Distributors v. Natividad (1949) Orders are issued by virt ue of Rule 21 of Civil Procedure and cannot be confused with unreasonable search in the Constitution Oklahoma Press v. Walling (1946) No officer or other person has entered petitioners premises against their will, to search t hem or to seize or examine their books, records or papers without their assent but pursuant to court order authorized by law Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) Housing inspection requires warrant: way of knowing the lawful limites of the power to search and whether or not the inspector is acting under proper authorization Determination of probable cause: 1. Focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon private citizen 2. If reas onable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area ins pection are satisfies with res pect to a particular dwelling Exception: citizen complaint or satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry Warrantless Arrests Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago (1988) Arrest was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for 3 mont hs not caught in the act but found with young boys in their respective rooms, the one with Sherman being naked (reasonable grounds to believe that committed pedophilia) The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings People v. Burgos (1986) Not 5(a): not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive doc ument, neither committing any subversive acts Not 5(b): requisites 1. Reas onable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime (personal knowledge) 2. Crime must in fact or actually have been committed (essential condition) Umil v. Ramos (1990)

Valid 5(a): subversion as a continuing crime, arrest is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense

Go v. CA (1992) Not Sec. 5 (a) nor S ec. 5 (b)6 days after and no personal knowledge People v. Mengote (1992) Not Sec. 5 (a) nor Sec. 5 (b) no personal knowledge, based on hearsay information from telephone caller Miclat, Jr. v. People (2011) Valid Sec. 5 (a): caught in flagrante delicto exposed to the view of police

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

SECTION 3 People v. Marti (1991) In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invok ed against the State came into possession of the government without government transgressing appellants rights People v. Damaso (1992) Immunity, being a personal one, cannot be waived except by the person whose rights are invaded Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA (1994) Tape recordings made by the military through wire-tapping the telephone homes of the private respondents RA 4200 (prohibit and penalize wiretapping and other related violations of the privacy of communications) makes it inadmissible as evidence Zulueta v. CA (1996) Section 3 applied to private individuals (husband and wife) Inadmissible as evidence: a person by cont racting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or right to privacy and constitutional protection is always available to him

3.

determination whether a film constitutes protected speech (only judicial determination) Prompt final judicial decision to minimize deterrent effect

Alexander v. US (1993) The RICO forfeiture order in this case does not forbid petitioner from engaging in any expressive activities in the future nor does it require him to obtain prior approval Newsounds v. Dy (2009) Cont ent-neut ral: concerned wit h incidents of speech, time, place or manner Cont ent-based: based on the subject matter of the speech (higher scrutiny) Circumstanc es of the case view it as cont entbased Subsequent Punishment People v. Perez (1923) Criticism, no matter how severe, on the executive, legislature or judiciary is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious Dangerous tendency rule: there is seditious tendency in the words used which could produce disaffection with the government Dennis v. US (1950) Justice Holmes: question in every case is whet her the words used in such a circumstance of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring substantive evil Overthrow of the government by force and violent is certainly a substantial enough inte rest for the government to limit speech Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969) Acceptable criterion for restriction of freedom of speech: 1. Clear and Present Danger Rule: real and imminent evil consequence of the comment 2. Dangerous Tendency Rule: nat ural tendency/ effect and probable effect to bring evil 3. Balancing-of-interest Rule: take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in given situation (used in this case) Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. (1985) The Court issued guidelines with regard to broadcast media: 1. Requirements laid down by Ang Tibay v. CIR should be followed before a broadcast station may be closed. 2. Due process is an unavoidable standard to which government action must conform 3. All forms of mediaprint or broadcastare entitled to the broad protection of freedom of speech and expression clause

SECTION 4 Prior restraint Near v. Minnesota (1931) Object of the statute is not punishment but suppression of offending newspaper suppression would follow unless there is evidence that it is true and published with good motives and justifiable end (putting the published under effective censorship Protection from previous restraints is not unlimited: When nation is at wart he government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops Primary requirements of dec ency may be enforced against obscene publications Incitement to acts of violence and overthrow by force of orderly government Freedman v. Maryland (1965) Requirement of prior submission of a film to a censor avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the danger of censorship system 1. Burden of proving that the film is unprotected must rest on the censor 2. Cannot be administered in a manner which would lend an effect of finality to a c ensors

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

4.

5.

6.

7.

Freedom of television and radio is somewhat lesser in scope than that of newspaper and print media Clear and Present Danger Test must take circumstances of broadcast media into account Freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to vitality of representative democracy Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses

Cont ent-based because the ban is only for commercial handbills

City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994) Interest not compelling enough to foreclose medium to political, religious and personal message Not proper time, place and manner regulation since no adequate substitute exists Importance of location: provides for the identity of the speaker and the individual freedom in the home Rubin v. Coors Brewing (1995) Cent ral Hudson case identified several factors for commercial speech to come within the First Amendment: 1. Must concern lawful activity and not be misleading 2. Whether the asserted government interest is substantial 3. (If 1 and 2 yields to positive answers) Whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted 4. Whether it is more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest Unprotected Speech: Libel Policarpio v. Manila Times (1962) To enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must not only be (1) true, but also (2) fair and it must be made in (3) good faith and (4) without any comments/ remarks Rectification does not wipe out responsibility New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) A rule compelling t he critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his facts leads to selfcensorship Prohibits public official from recovering damages for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made wit h actual malice(1) with knowledge that it was false or (2) with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not Lopez v. CA (1970) For liability to arise then without offending press freedom: statement made with actual malic e(1) knowledge that it was false or (2) with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (no pressure of daily deadline since it was published weekly) Rosebloom v. Metromedia (1971) First Amendment extends to myriad matters of public interest New Y ork Times standard was made to apply Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) State interest in compensating injury to the reputation of private individual requires different JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. v. Judge Capulong (1988) No clear and present danger of any violation of a right to privacy as the film was uncompleted and not yet exhibited to any audience Enrile as a public figure: a person who by his accomplishments, fame mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public legitimate interest in his doings Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui (2007) Abuse of right to free speec h: free expression must not be used as vehicle to satisfy ones rational obsession to demean or destroy the court and its magistrates Speech and Electoral Process Adiong v. COMELEC (1992) Balancing-of-interests: when faced with borderline situations where freedom to speak by candidate or freedom to know on the part of the electorate are invoked against actions intended for maintaining clean and free elections, the COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom No substantive evil under clean and present danger test Regulations strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference by displaying it on his car to convince others to agree with him SWS v. COMELEC (2001) Test for content-based regulation (based on US v. OBrien case): 1. Within the constitutional power of the government 2. Furthers an important or substantial governmental interest 3. Government interest is unrelated to suppression of free expression 4. Incidental restriction on freedom of speech is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of interest Commercial Speech City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993) The distinction bears no relationship to the interest that the city asserted (i.e. beauty and safety)

(stricter) rule since they are (1) more vulnerable and (2) relinquished to the public no part of his interest Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) Political cartoon is oft ern based on exploitation of unfort unate physical traits or politically embarrassing events calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal (The Court said that the political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them) May recover damages only if it contains false statement of fact which was made with actual malice In Re Emil Jurado (1995) Liability for published statements demonstrably false or misleading and derogatory of the courts and individual judges Criticism against the judiciary (esp. the Supreme Court) must be respectful Borjal v. Court of Appeals (1999) Absolutely privileged: not actionable even if in bad faith (e.g. parliamentary immunity) Qualifiedly privileged: not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention or justifiable motive 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty (Art. 354 of RPC) 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public offic ers in the exercise of their functions (Art. 354 of RPC) 3. Fair commentaries of matters of public interest

To avoid constitutional classification of films

taint limited

to

Pita v. Court of Appeals (1989) Respondents have no proof t o justify the ban to warrant confiscation The need for warrant: 1. Apply for search warrant if obscenity raps is in order 2. Convince the Court that the materials are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil 3. Judge would determine whether or not it is obscene 4. If probable cause exists, judge would issue warrant 5. Proper suit should be brought under Art. 201 of the RPC 6. Conviction subject to appeal Assembly and Petition BAYAN v. Ermita (2006) Freedom to assembly and petition may be restricted by virt ue of police power if there is clear and present danger BP 880 practically codify the ruling in Reyes v. Bagatsing Calibrated Pre-emptive Response serves no valid purpose sinc e it is the same thing as Maximum Tolerance Obscenity Barnes v. Glen Theater (1991) Applying the OBrien test: statute justified despite its incidental limitations on some expressive activity nd 2 criteria: furthers a substantial gov. interest in protecting order and morality rd 3 : unrelated to suppression of free expression makes the message slightly less graphic merely combined with expressive activity th 4 : incidental restriction not greater FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) Different treatment of broadcast media: (1) established uniquely pervasive presence, (2) uniquely accessible to children st 1 Amendment does not deny the gov. any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language in any circumstance Renton v. Playtime Theater (1986) Cont ent-neut ral: justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech It is the secondary effect which it attempt ed to avoid: serve substantial governmental interest and allows for reasonable alt ernative avenues for communication JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) Only justification for limitation: danger of grave or imminent danger of serious evil to public safety JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

Unprotected Speech: Obscenity Miller v. California (1973) Basic guidelines for the triar of fact whether obscene or not: 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporaneous community standards would find that work taken as a whole, appeals to the prunient interest 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual c onduct specifically defined by the applicable state law 3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak (1985) Motion picture can be limit ed if there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent

As to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access

community can justify the infringement of religious freedom UCCP v. Bradford UCC (2012) Ecclesiastical affairconcerns doctrines, creed or form of worship of the church of the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership Secular matter with civil courts purview Free Exercise of Religion Victoriano v. Elizalde (1974) Free exercise of religion is superior t o contract rights Introduced an exception to closed-shop arrangement by virtue of ones religion American Bible Society v. City of Manila (1957) Ordinanc e imposing licens e fee cannot be applied because it would abridge free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent (1993) Exemption did not create privileged few, it is religious equality, not civil immunity Freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma Strict scrutiny: would not create a clear and present danger of substantive evil Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) States interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process when it infringes on the fundamental rights and interests To have protection of the religion clause, the claims must be rooted in religious belief German v. Barangan (1985) Circumstanc es case serious doubts on the sincerity and good faith of petitioners in invoking their rights Freedom to act can be limitedin the interest of national security in this case Centeno v. Villaon-Pornillos (1994) Exercise of religion may be regulated at some slight inconvenience in order that the state may protect its citizens from injury (fraudulent purposes) Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeah (1993) Laws that is (1) neutral and of (2) general applicability need not be justified by compelling governmental interest even if has incidental effects of burdening particular religious practice Failure to satisfy both needs that it should be (1) narrowly-tailored, and (2) compelling gov. interest

SECTION 5 Non-establishment of Religion Aglipay v. Ruiz (1937) Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious purpose not issued and sold for the benefit of the RCC incidental benefits to religion School District v. Schempp (1963) strict neutrality Double aspect of freedom of religion: (1) Freedom to believe: forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or religion (2) Freedom to exercise: Free exercise of chosen religion Establishment Clause prohibits dependency of one upon the other to the end that official support would be places behind the tenets of all orthodoxies o Prohibits use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise of anyone, but it was never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs Free Exercise Claus e value of religious training, teaching and observance and freely choose and free from compulsion Valid intervention: (1) secular legislative purpose, (2) primary effect that either advanc es not inhibits religion Board of Education v. Allen (1968) Test for allowable aid: (1) s ecular legislative purpose, (2) primary effect that either advances not inhibits religion Financial benefit to students and parents not to the parochial school (lending of text books) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 3 main evils which the establishment clause was intended: (1) spons orship (2) financial support (3) active involvement of the sovereign in religious activities NON-ESTABLISHMENT TEST (1) Secular legislative purpose (2) Primary effect that either advances not inhibits religion (3) Must not require entanglement with recipient institutions Teachers have substantially different ideological character from books inspection as entanglement Islamic Dawah v. Executive Secretary (2003) Classifying a food product as a halal is a religious function becayse the standards used are drawn from Quran and Islamic beliefs Only prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

Estrada v. Escritor (2003) Strict neutrality separation: protect the state from the Church; neutral to all relations, does not require that it be adversary; state should base public policy solely on secular considerations Benevolent neutrality accommodation: permits religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference Compelling state interest test applicable where conduct is involved for the whole gamut of human conduct has different effects on the states interests Benevolent neutrality may accommodate morality based on religion provided it does not offend compelling state interest Lambs Chapel v. School District (1993) Cont rol over access to a non-public forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinction drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral In Re: Request of Muslim Employees (2005) The performance of religious practices should not prejudice the courts and public

This is not to lose eight of the reas onable regulations which may be imposed by said agencies in custody of public reco rds on the manner in which the right to information may be exercised by the public Authority to regulate the manner of examining public records does not carry with it the power to prohibit: may regulate to prevent damage, loss and undue interference with the duties of said agencies WON within the ambit of constitutional guarantee: (1) Being a public concern or public interest (2) Not being exempt by law from the operation of constitutional guarantee

SECTION 6 Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919) Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient deprived of locomotion just like being imprisoned No official, no matter how high, is above the law Marcos v. Manglapus (1989) Right to return to ones count ry is not among the rights granted by the Bill of Rights which only includes liberty of abode and the right to travel BUT can be considered as part of t he generally accepted principles of international law: have different protection: arbitrarily deprived Yap v. Court of Appeals (2001) Right to change abode and travel within the Philippines are not absolute rights Order of the CA constitute lawful order contemplated by Sec. 6 OAS v. Macarine (2012) Circular does not restrict (means to restrain or prohibit) but merely regulate (govern/ direct) by providing guidelines to be complied SECTION 7 Information and Access to Official Records Legaspi v. CSC (1987) Gov. agencies are without discretion in refusing disclosure of or access to information of public concern

Neri v. Senate (2008) Executive has right to withhold documents that might reveal: o Military or state secrets o Identity of gov. informers in some circumstances o Information related to pending investigations o Foreign relations o Presidential communications privilege Right to information limited by as may be provided by law Right to information not the same with right of Congress for information in aid of legislation Limitations under Chavez v. PCGG: o National security o Trade secrets and banking transactions o Criminal matters o Other confidential information Akbayan v. Aquino (2008) JPEPA is a matter of public concern Offers exchanged during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published because of Japans historic confidentiality Diplomatic negotiations privilege Under executive privilege? S how that information is vital by sufficient showing of need Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel (2008) MOA-AD is a matter of public concerninvolving sovereignty and territorial integrity Sec. 28 Art II splendid symmetry of Sec. 7 Art III o Sec. 28 Art II duty to give information even if nobody demands o Sec. 7 Art III right the people to demand information Cannot invoke executive privilege because contrasted with EO No. 3s mandat e of continuing consultations Antolin v. Domondon (2010) National board exams are matters of public concern

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

BUT there are public reasons to limit access in order to properly administer the exam its inherent difficulty need it to be confidential

Respondents to return the just compensation plus legal int erest, expenses for the services in managing to the extent they were benefited

Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board (2010) Most commercial contracts including financerelated project agreements carry confidential clause to protect proprietary data and intellectual property right Initiatives v. PSALM (2012) Constitutional right involves on-going negotiations before a final contract SECTION 8 Right to Association Standard for abridgement: Clear and Present Danger of Substantive Evil UPCSU v. Laguesma (1998) Rout e manages are managerial employees as determined by the DOLE business administrators in their own right, more than make recommendations Comm. Lerum (during Constitutional Convention) restore the right of (1) s upervis ory employees (not managerial), (2) gov. employees and (3) security guards PADCOM v. Ortigas Center (2002) Never forc ed to joinit could have avoided such membership by not buying land from TDC Voluntary agreed to be bound SECTION 9 Bardillon v. Calamba (2003) Expropriation suit does not involve recovery of sum of money but exercise of gov. authority which is incapable of pecuniary estimation Republic v. Holy Trinity (2008) RA 8974 National gov infrastructure project Immediate payment of 100% zonal valuation (initial payment) AND difference after determination of just compensation (final payment) Current zonal valuation Rule 67 of Rules of Court Other infrastructure projects Required only initial deposit with an authorized gov. depository Assessed value for purposes of taxation Expropriation in General; Reversion Mactan v. Lozada (2010) 2 requirements of power of eminent domain: 1. For a particular public purpose nature of an implied condition to keep the property for that purpose, otherwise, incumbent upon them to return the property 2. Just compensation

Vda. De Ouano v. Republic (2011) Always conditioned on its continued devotion to its public purpose Elements of Taking US v. Causby (1946) There was taking: the owners right to possess and exploit the land beneficial ownership was destroyed It is the owners loss, not the takers gain which is the measure of the value of the property taken Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi (1974) Elements: o Expropriator enter private property o More t han a moment ary period permanent o Entry under warrant or color of legal authority o Devoted to public use or informally appropriated or injuriously affected o In a way that oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property When does taking c ommence in an ex propriation proceeding? Filing of the complaint (also basis of compensation) OSG v. Ayala Land (2009) Power to regulate does not include power to prohibit nor confiscate Mandate to give public access for free: more of eminent domain regulation which deprives any person of the profitable use of his property constitutes taking and entitles him to compensation NPC v. Heirs of Macabangkit (2011) NPCs construction of the tunnel constituted taking of the land prevented owners from introducing any developments on the surface and from disposing of the land Includes destruction, restriction, diminution or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in lawful manner Public Use Sumulong v. Guerrero (1987) Public welfare is what ever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use Social services include housing City of Manila v. Tan Te (2011) Socialized housing has already been included in the expanded definition of public use or purposeindirect public benefit or advantage JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

Just Compensation City of Manila v. Estrada (1913) The market value of the land taken is the just compens ation: price which it will bring when it is offered for sale by one desires but not oliged to sell it, and is brought by one who is under no necessity of having it justreal, substantial, full and ample, fair and full equivalent of the loss sustained EPZA v. Dulay (1987) Court still has the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what is stated in the decree Only serve as guiding principle, but must not substitute courts judgment Determination of just compensation is a judicial function Judicial Review De Knecht v. Bautista (1980) Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property should be taken Expropriation by another government agency or municipal c orporation court can come in to enforce the provisions o Adequacy of compensation o Necessity of takingrequires evidence o Public use character of the purpose Republic v. De Knecht (1990) Former decision not an obstacle to the legislature to make is independent assessment of the circumstances and propriety of undertaking expropriation Manotoc v. NHA (1987) At least notive and opportunity to be heard are given to protect property rights Basis of eminent domain is necessity no showing why it is singled out SECTION 10 Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) Obligation of contracts includes validity and remedy Remedy may be modified by the State provided no substantial right is impaired Impaired by law which renders them invalid or releases or extinguishes them or derogate from substantial contractual rights Rutter v. Esteban Limitations for impairment: o Should refer to remedy and substantial right o Must be with restrictions/ conditions o Justified by emergency o Temporary

SECTION 13 Right to Bail Yap v. CA (2001) Imposing bail in excessive amount could reneder meaningless the right to bail liberty would be beyond reach Bail not intended as a punishment nor answer for the civil liability of the accused Purpose: guarantee appearance at the trial Govt of Hong Kong v. Olalia (2007) Extradition is sui generis, not determination of guilt, administrative only BUT employs deprivation of libery and machinery of criminal law Right to bail upon proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk Excessive Bail Dela Camara v. Enage (1971) When the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive, otherwise it is meaningless SECTION 16 Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases Binay v. Sandiganbayan (1999) The right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the acused in criminal proceedings but extends to civil, administrative, judicial and quasijudicia Violated only when proceedings is attended by vexacious, capricious and oppressive delays Balancing test: o Conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is weighed o Length of the delay o Reasons for the delay o Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused o Prejudice caused by the delay Not only time but also facts and circumstances peculiar to the case The case was sufficiently complex, thus, justifying the length of time for their resolution SECTION 17 Right Against Self-Incrimination US v. Navarro (1904) Forcing the defendant to become a witness in his own behalf or take much severer punishment No one is bound to incriminate himself: would place the wirtness under the strngest temptation to commit the crime of perjury and prevent the extorting of evidence by duress US v. Tan Teng (1912) Substance emitting from the body of the defendant Prohibition is simply against legal process to extract frim the defendants own lips, agains t his will, an admission of guilt JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

not

Inspection of te bodily feautures by the cour or by witness, can not violate the right because it does not call upon the accused as a witness, it is not testimonial responsibility

US v. Ong Siu Hong (1917) Discharge morphine from his mouth Prohibit only testimonial compulsion by oral examination to extort unwilling confessions Villaflor v. Summers (1920) Pregnancy test Limited only against compulsory testimonial selfincrimination ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible Beltran v. Samson (1929) Take dictation in his own handwriting Writing more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers, writing is not purely a mechanical act, because it required the application of intelligence and attention Compelled to create by writing evidenc e which does not exist, which may identify him as the falsifier Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr (1962) Accused in criminal cases may refuse to not only answer inc riminat ory questions but also to take the witness stand Technically civil proceeding in substance but an effect a criminal onet ry and punish persons charged with commission of public offenses or public wrong, not redress of private grievance Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (1969) Malpractice case The nature of the penalty should be considered (e.g. revocation of license) Standard Chartered v. Senate (2007) They are not indicted as accused in criminal proceedings but summoned respondent as resources persons or as witnesses in legislative inquiry Ordinary witness compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question required incriminating answer Accusedmay altogether refus e to take the witness stand and refuse to answer SECTION 19 Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment, Excessi ve Fines People v. Estoista (1953) To be unconstitutional, it should be: o flagrantly or plainly oppressive o wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offenses as to shock the moral sense of community

People v. Echagaray (1997) Deat h penalty was not complet ely abolished but merely suspended and gave Congress the discretion to review it based on future circumstances Power to re-impose death penalty entails: o Congress define what is meant by heinous crime By reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity or perversity is repugnant and outrageous to the common standards of decency and morality in a just and civilized society o Penalize by death only crimes that qualify as heinous based on the law or with qualifying circumstances o Motivated by com pelling reasons involving heinous crimes SECTION 20 Imprisonment of Debt Lozano v. Martinez (1986) The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and issuing a worthless check Not designed to coerce debtor to pay his debt SECTION 22 People v. Ferrer (1972) Anti-subversion Act Bill of attainderlegislative act which inflicts punishment without trial It does not specify the Communist Party of the Philippines merely declared it as an organized conspiracy Their guilt still has to be judicially established Bill of attainder must also apply retroactively and reach past conduct Virata v. Sandiganbayan (1991) Not bill of attainder: it is for Sandiganbayan to determine Not ex post facto law: nothing has been altered in terms of the quantum of proof required for an adverse judgment against the defendant or a judgment of conviction against accused Lacson v. Exec. Secretary (1999) Ex post facto law when: (CAPEDCP)

(a)which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater that when it was committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed,
JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant (e) Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage (f) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; (g) deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
RA 8249 is not a penal law, but substantive law or jurisdiction, procedural statute

Not within reasonable timewithin 3 years Cannot assert positive acts since the law clearly provides for the requirements

Yu v. Defensor-Santiago (1989) Such acts constitute, considered together, or express renunciation of petitioners Philippine citizenship (e.g. passport) Phil citizenship is not a commodity to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1996) Citizenship may be reacquired: o Direct act of Congress o By naturalization o By repatriation Repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application o Curative, remedial, creates new rights Not dual citizen but stateless during the interim period Labo v. COMELEC (1992) In the absence of any special action by the proper authorities, a mere application for repat riation, does not and cannot amount to automatic reacquisition of applicants citizenship Mercado v. Manzano (1992) Dual citizenshipresult of concurrent application of different laws of 2 or more states, a person is simultaneously considered national by said states: INVOLUNTARY o Filipino parents + born in a state under jus soli o Filipino mother + alien fat her if considered citizen under such laws o Marry aliens if by the laws of the husbands country, the woman is considered citizen Dual allegiance person simultaneously owes by some positive acts, loyalty to 2 or more states result of an individuals VOLITION The phrase dual citizenship in LGC must understood as referring to dual allegiance o Upon filing of their COC, they elect Phil. citizenship to terminate their status as person with dual citizenship SECTION 2 Bengson v. HRET (2001) Repatriation: loss citizenship due to: o Desertion of the armed forces o Service in the armed forces of the allied forces in the WWII o Service in the armed forces of the US at any other time o Marriage of Filipino women o Political and economic reasons Only have to take allegiance and register t he fact to the civil registry JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

ARTICLE IV
SECTION 1 Children of Filipino fathers and mothers Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners (1991) Gatchalian is a citizen of the Phils at the time of the adoption of this Constitution Res judicata for citizenship cases: o A persons citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party o The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof o The finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court Tecson v. COMELEC (2004) those whose fathers are citizens of Philippinesno distinction as to legitimacy the

Paragraph (3) Co v. Electoral Tribunal (1991) Before: those born of Filipino mot hers but alien fathers who would elect Philippine citizenship who were not a natural-born Election of citizenship: formal or informal Participation in suffragepositive act of election Republic v. Sagun (2012) CA 625 provided for procedure of election of citizenship o Statement signed and sworn to by the party o Filed with the nearest civil registry o Oath of allegiance

Recovery of the original nationality ret urn to his original status before his loss of Phil citizenship

SECTION 5 AASJS v. Datumanong (2007) Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act: those who lost citizenship o Before RA 9225needs only allegiance o After RA 9225shall remain citizen Allows dual citizenship, not dual allegiance Dual citizenship: problem of the foreign country since the latest oath is allegiance to the Philippines

Hacienda Luisita v. PARC (2011) Stock Distribution Option constitutional: allows to own directly or collectively the land they till allows direct and indirect ownership Collective ownership done through medium of juridical entities composed of farmers becoming stockholders/ members Art. XIII not self-executory SECTION 10 Urban Land Reform and Housing People v. Leachon (1998) E viction is illegal or unlawful if not done in accordance wit h law and not in a just and humane manner o Due process o Opportunity to controvert allegations against him that he is illegal occupant o Sufficiently notified before the eviction o No loss of lives, physical injuries or unnecessary loss of or damage to properties BUT not dependant on existence of a resettlement area designated by the government SECTION 17 (4) Budget (Human Rights) CHR Employees v. CHR (2006) Automatic release is just one of many matters of fiscal autonomy (freedom from outside control) Fiscal autonomy only to: (1) judiciary, (2) Constitutional Commissions (3) Ombudsman Reorganization must be based on S alary Standardization Lawrequired DBM approval SECTION 18 Powers of CHR Carino v. CHR (1991) No adjudicatory powers, only investigatory receive evidence and make findings of facts as regards claimed HR violations involving civil and political rights Not a judicial function like a court of justice Simon v. CHR (1994) 6 areas of CHR o Protection of rights of political detainees o Treatment of pris oners and the prevention of tortures o Fair and public trials o Case of disappearances o Salvaging and hamletting o Other crimes committed against the religious Political rights, civil rights, Congress may provide for other cases The order to desist is not investigatorial in character but an adjudicative power which it does not possess Social and economic rights not under CHR

ARTICLE V
Macalintal v. COMELEC (2003) Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 An absentee remains attached to his residence in the Phils as residence is considered s ame as domicile The qualifications of voters as stated in S ec. 1 shall remain except for the residency requirement They should not have applied for citizenship in another country Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC (2006) Those who ret ained/ reacquired their citizenship under RA 9225 may also vote as absentee voters

ARTICLE XIII
SECTION 1 Policy to Remove Inequities International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing (2000) Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries Salary should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires SECTION 4 Agrarian Reform Assn of Small Landowners v. Sec. of DAR (1989) CARP both police power and eminent domain o Police power: merely prescribes retention limits for land owners o Eminent domain: necessary to carry it out is to deprive such owners of what ever lands as they may own in excess of max. amt allowed Not traditional eminent domain, but revolutionary kind of expropriation Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR (1990) RA 6657should not include commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms

JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)

ARTICLE XIV
SECTION 1 Natural and Primary Rights of Parents Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) Prohibition of teaching of other language than English Right of the plaintiff to t each and t he right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children No emergency or danger wit h knowing other language

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Compulsory Education Act Unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children Ginsberg v. New York (1968) Merely adjusts the definition of obscenity The power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches bey ond the scope of its authority over adults 2 interests to justify limitations: o Parents claim to authority in their o wn household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society o States interest in the well -being of youth Quality and Accessibility of Education DECS v. San Diego (1989) NMA T as valid police power to limit the admissios to medical school only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation It is for the appropriat e calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full harnessing of his potentials SECTION 3 Duty of Institutions Mirriam College v. CA (2000) Academic freedom freedom to determine: o Who may teach o What may be taught o How it shall be taught o Who may be admitted to study (includes whom to expel or suspend) SECTION 5 Academic Freedom or Institutions of Higher Learning Garcia v. Faculty Admissions (1975) Respondent has no clear duty to admit the petitioner due to academic freedom University of San Carlos v. CA (1988) Granting honors is part of academic freedom, its discretion cannot be disturbed by the court unless there is GAD JEWELLE ANN LOU P. SANTOS Ateneo de Manila Law School (1B) Constitutional Law II (Atty. Ingles)