Sandy Crab Consti 2

m
m
m

rmal declarati n r enumerati n the undamental rights secured and
guaranteed by the C nstituti n t individuals t pr tect them r m
arbitrary and desp tic exercise g vernmental p ers
estricti ns are directed against the state and d n t g vern relati ns
beteen private pers ns.

!"#$#
m
3 lice 3 er
Mm st essential, insistent and the least limitable p ers,
extending t all the great public needs
Mm 9nherent and plenary p er in the State, hich enables it t
pr hibit all hurtul t the c m rt, saety, and elare s ciety.
Mm est up n public necessity and the right state and public t
selpr tecti n.
Mm P dge in the legislature and may be delegated t the executive
Mm equisites valid exercise: laul subject and laul means
m
gminent D main
Mm ight the state t acquire private pr perty r public use up n
payment just c mpensati n
m
"axati n
Mm 3 er the state t raise revenues. Such must be r public
purp se, equitable and uni rm
m
m
m
m
m
m
Sh uld be mere regulati n n t pr hibiti n a pr essi n r calling that is

legitimate.
3resumpti n c nstituti nality
3rincipal Yardstick against exercise p er
m
Due pr cess clause
m
gqual pr tecti n clause
Pie n t just the pr tecti n the right t be alive r security nes
limb against physical harm. 9t is right t a g d lie emphasizing n the
quality living
Piberty measure reed m hich may be enj yed in a civilized
c mmunity. 9t is the right the citizen t be ree t use his aculties in all
laul ays.
3r perty include vested rights, d es n t include public ice, license r
mere privilege unless such has ev lved int s me rm pr perty
pr tected by the c nstituti n. "his is everything ver hich man may
have exclusive d mini n r nership.
6
m
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
%&' ! %( 3rimacy Human ights

(3hilippine Bl ming ills gmpl yees Org. v. 3B C .)
ver 3r perty ights
&)*+*&
m eed r n tice and pp rtunity t be heard (n t actual hearing)
m uarantee pr cedural airness
m 3urp se pr cedural due pr cess: (a.) c ntribute t the accuracy and
thus minimize err r in deprivati n (b.) gives a sense
rati nal
participati n in a decisi n than can aect his destiny and thus enhances
his dignity as a thinking pers n.
m ai lati ns may be cured by m ti n r rec nsiderati n
a. equirements )* ,& %# -*)%&%+ &)%#( (Banc il v.
3alanca)CO
1.m urt r tribunal ith judicial p er t hear and determine
cases.
2.m -urisdicti n must be laully acquired
ver the pers n
r
pr perty
3.m pp rtunity t be heard
4.m -udgment rendered up n a laul hearing
3r perty al ne is resp nsible r claim in pr ceedings, but the
individual is still named as deendant (unlike
tice t the deendant in this case is O" abs lutely essential.
3resumpti n regularity. "hat up n n tice t the pr perty, there is n tice
t the individual.
3ublicati n is already deemed suicient r pr cedural due pr cess.
3

ere exp sure t publicity d es n t aect impartiality in this case.
3ers n alleging must have direct pr inluence, n t just mere p ssibility.
"he public cann t be excluded, especially hen the issue is public interest.
b. equirements )* ,& %# # )$%#% %" &)%#(
* %.-*)%&%+&)%#( (Ang "ibay v. C9)HCSSB9
1.m ight t %#( including right t present case and submit
evidence
2.m "ribunal must &# %)evidence presented
*,, itsel
3.m Decisi n must have s mething t
4.m gvidence must be */ #%+
5.m Decisi n must be / ) # "%)#& presented r at least
c ntained in the rec rd
6.m "ribunal r b dy must act n its n i#),#)# c nsiderati n
7.m B ard r b dy must render its decisi n in a manner here
1A 2010
1.m tice and Hearing (imp rtant r quasi judicial b dies because
ith ut it the c urts uld lack jurisdicti n)
2.m ate must be reas nable and just (may be implied)
3.m ate must n t be c niscat ry and ppressive.
parties can kn the vari us issues and the # r decisi n.

c. 0)%%#&)%#(
1.m gntitled t n tice and hearing be re issuance arrant O
tice uld deeat the purp se the arrest.
uilt is n t adjudged during these pr ceedings.
2.m gntitled t n tice and hearing during the pr ceedings.
3.m Bail/pr visi nal liberty n t generally given, but bail may be
given under special circumstances:
a.m When extraditee is O" a light risk
b.m Special Humanitarian c nsiderati ns
c.m gxtraditee d es O" p se a danger t the c mmunity.
Once bail has been granted, it cann t be rev ked.
gxtraudicial 3r ceedings c nsidered in the nature criminal cases
because there is arrest detenti n and rced transer t an ther
state. "hus due pr cess must be bserved by pr viding bail.
vernment b dies have 2 p ers:

1.m Quasi Pegislative general rules, hich ill aect everyb dy in a
certain class. rm n tice, hearing r cr ssexaminati n
required.
2.m Quasijudicial applies exclusively t a speciic entity r pers n. Any
change must be made ater due n tice and hearing.
3rice ixing is c nsidered as an exercise a quasilegislative uncti n
(aceda v. gB)
e. Academic Cases
,&)*+1*%$# !&)$%&& (AD v. Capul ng)
9A9AC
1. #!$) in riting the nature the accusati n
2. ight t # charges, pti nally ith c unsel
3. ight accused t be %#!$) evidence against them
4. ight t ))*& n evidence
5. gvidence must be &# %)).
"#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n

ater charges are br ught (even be re the charges are br ught and heard)
since the same is n t in the nature penalty, but merely a preliminary step in
an administrative investigati n. Suspensi n is n t a punishment r penalty r
acts dish nesty and misc nduct in ice, but is nly a preventive measure.
"here re it is n t a denial pr cedural due pr cess (Castill C v. Barbers)
gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic reed m:

1. Wh may teach
2. What may be taught
3. H it is taught
4. Wh is admitted t study acc rding t
students h vi late sch l rules and regulati ns.
% $%
1.m
2.m
3.m
this, they may expel
. Dep rtati n 3r ceedings eect is 3enal in character, s there must be due

pr cess .9WSHD
1.m 3reliminary #" %(%# t determine i they are aliens
2.m # Arrest issued ater inding just cause
3.m Charge must ,&%!'act r missi n
4.m ight t be )and present evidence up n laul hearing
( pr secut r because it is a summary judicial pr ceeding)
5.m inal )&+%# dep rtati n ith basis
g. ixing ates and egulati n 3r essi ns
#)) !(*+%#!
(*+%# ! ! %# a pr essi nal license bec mes a pr perty right
ater its issuance. (C r na v. H3A3)
cann t be taken aay ith ut due pr cess, n tice r hearing.
+%#%" &aHC
ust be r a "+%) reas n
ust be given the pp rtunity t be ), due pr cess
Any evidence derived r m &#! %#/ c unsel is inadmissible.
ight t c unsel is a right even in civil and administrative
pr ceedings. "he Pab r C de expressly grants the right t c unsel.
(Sala v. PC)
*
When a statute lacks a c mprehensible standard, it vi lates due pr cess r
ailure t acc rd pers ns, especially pers ns targeted by it, air n tice
c nduct t av id, and it leaves la en rcers ith unbridled discreti n 9
carrying ut pr visi ns.
"he lack c mprehensible standards means the statute is vague and
am unts t a lack due pr cess because lack A9 O"9Cg and there is
D g DgPgA"9O.
Overbreadth: vernment purp se must n t be achieved ith means hich
are unnecessarily br ad and invasive pr tected reed ms.
1A 2010
*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser r

hatever decisi n might be rendered against the principal, hether r n t the
surety as impleaded in the c mplaint. tice t the principal is n tice t the
surety, thus they have been given an pp rtunity t participate in litigati n. 9
they ch se n t t intervene, it is deemed that they have aived their right t
be heard.
tice t the principal is als n tice t the surety (Str ngh ld v. CA)
%!!#)* $ )
m reiture pr ceedings are n t penal in nature there re uld nly need
substantial evidence. "here is als n need r assistance c unsel
(eeder v. CA)
"he right t be presumed inn cent is given nly t an individual in
criminal cases; and n t t c rp rate entities.
+ * ,&)%#( are a valid exercise p lice p er the State t
pr tect the public r m the dissipati n unds and bank runs. 9t d es n t
need n tice and hearing as l ng as there is subsequent judicial revie. (CB v.
CA)
3r cedure: gg
1.m 0$%#%# by Central Bank
2.m
, by netary B ard n the bank c ncerned
3.m 3rima acie "%)#& ab ut the banks bad inancial c nditi n
#&++%# ! ,' %( i deemed t be a cust m vi lates due
pr cess (American 9nterashi n v. O3)
0, * initially as nly a privilege but eventually ev lved int a
rm pr perty right hich sh uld n t be rem ved arbitrarily and ith ut
due pr cess.
9nput taxes O" pr perties n r pr perty rights but mere statut ry privilege.
*/ #%"*&
m 9nterest
public requires such intererence and the means are
reas nably necessary r the acc mplishment the purp se and n t
unduly ppressive
m Piberty the citizen may be restrained in the interest public health,
public rder and saety, r anything else ithin the sc pe p lice p er.
m 9t is the duty the legislature t : 9
1.m determine hat the i#
the public require
2.m Determine hat $ * are necessary r the pr tecti n such
interests.
"he determinati n, the legislature n hat is a pr per exercise
p lice p er is subject t the supervisi n the c urts ( S v. " ribi )

m
#)) !+%&
1.m Paul 3urp se r the general elare the c mmunity.
2.m Paul eth d reas nable, n n ppressive and n narbitrary
means and meth ds empl yed in c nnecti n t
the
acc mplishment the purp se.
3 lice p er cann t interere ith private pr perty r purely aesthetic
purp ses. But here the act is reas nably ithin a pr per c nsiderati n
and care r the public health, saety r c m rt, it sh uld n t be
disturbed by the c urts. (Churchill v. aerty)
"he State may n t under the guise 3 lice 3 er, permanently divest
ners the beneicial use their pr perty and practically c niscate
them s lely t preserve r assure the aesthetic appearance the
c mmunity. (3e ple v. ajard )
An rdinance may be c nsidered invalid i: P3PS
1.m 9t

+%$% the may rs discreti n
2.m 9t #,*, t be attained by requiring a permit
3.m enumerates n c nditi n r its grant r reusal
4.m &2 #)) , c nerring up n the may r arbitrary and
unrestricted p er.
3*#%&%,++%&# ! c uld be classiied int : OO
(1) "h se imp sed r (*+%#(&&*,%#
r regular enterprises,
(2) "he regulati n r restricti n ##.* !*+&&*,%#
r enterprises,
(3) r "#* purp ses nly.
Ordinance is a valid exercise p lice p er t minimize certain practices
hurtul t public m rals. "he alarming increase in the rate pr stituti n,
adultery and rnicati n in anila traceable in great part t the existence
m tels. "axati n may be made t implement a p lice p er and the am unt,
bject, and instance taxati n is dependent up n the l cal legislative b dy.
P

0 p lice p er t regulate behavi r. C ngress can legislate
m rality thr ugh sin taxes. (grmitaalate v. City ay r anila)
"he extincti n rtgage and ther liens ned by legitimate credit rs
A9 c nstitutes a taking ith ut due pr cess. "he m rtgages and l ans are
purely private and have n t sh n t be aected ith private interest;
there re, there as n cause t deprive the private individuals vested
pr perty rights. Outright c niscati n
3r perty ith ut O"9Cg and
HgA9 is invalid. 9 there is a 2%#(, there must be ust C mpensati n.
(DC v. 3hil aeterans Bank)
1A 2010
Pegislature, may n t, under the guise pr tecting public interest, arbitrarily

interere ith private businesses, hich is a pr perty right the ner.
"heaters, cinemas and ther exhibiti ns cann t be c nsidered 3
(Balacuit v. C9)
(*#
a statute r act is vague hen it lacks c mprehensible
standards that men c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and dier as t its applicati n. 9t vi lates due pr cess r ailure t
acc rd t pers n air n tice the c nduct t av id and it leaves la en rcers
unbridled discreti n in carrying ut its pr visi ns and bec mes an arbitrary
lexing g vernment muscles.
%).!."(*# )&%# a statute hich either rbids r requires
the d ing an act in terms s vague that men c mm n intelligence must
necessarily guess its meaning and dier as t its applicati n
"/) )&%# a g vernmental purp se may n t be achieved by
means hich seep unnecessarily br adly and thereby invade the area
pr tected reed m
!"+%))%##&C 3"
(a) d es n t &#"# the c nstituti n r statute
(b) must *#!% r ppressive
(c) must ,%+#))% &%$%#'
(d) must pr hibit but may regulate )
(e) must be (#+ and c nsistent ith public p licy
() must *# #/+
An rdinance must n t c ntravene the C nstituti n r any Statute (agtajas
v. 3ryce)
Due pr cess d es n t alays entail judicial pr ceedings, especially hen it
c mes t taxati n.
! #/+# ! #4 0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v.

" rres)
1.m Whether by his c nduct, the individual has exhibited an expectati n
privacy.
2.m Whether s ciety deems this expectati n reas nable.
A statute must satisact rily sh the presence c mpelling state interest
and that the la, rule, regulati n is narr ly dran t preclude abuses.

1*%$# ! */+%&%#. "he absence publicati n is atal as held in
"anada v. "uvera. gven i a is internal in nature, i its
eects reach ut t pe ple ther than its empl yees, then it must be
published. (3ilipinas Ka v. CA)
All statutes, including th se l cal applicati n, and private las must be
published as a c nditi n r their eectivity. Als c vered are 3Ds, gOs and
administrative rules and regulati ns in s ar as they implement existing la
pursuant t a valid delegati n. Whether r n t the circular addresses a small
gr up r n t, the act that it is an administrative circular hich en rces las,
makes publicati n imperative. (3H9PSA v. Secretary Pab r)
*/+%& !!%& is n t a pr perty right but a statut ry right. C ngress may
pr vide r requirements and limits t public ice.
yalties: taking pr perty ith ut just c mpensati n.

*#%&# . "he p ssessi n irearms, as ell as a gun license permitting
the carrying irearms, is nly a privilege and O" a right. "he regulati n
irearms all ithin the p lice p er the State, as it regulates its use and
pr tecti n r the public saety and elare the general s ciety. (Chavez v.
mul )
# %# . are n t c nsidered a gratuity. "hey are delayed c mpensati n
hich vests the recipient ith a legitimate pr perty interest. (S9S v.
ntesclar s)
9n ++(+* !,', the acti n the p ssess r and n t the ner is

binding. 9t serves t prevent urther illegal use the pr perty.
"he state is n t required t c mpensate the ner r pr perty it has
already laully acquired under the exercise g vernmental auth rity ther
than the p er eminent d main. (Bennis v. ichigan)
%$# #!% . etirement beneits

military pers nnel are
gratuit us in character, as such they nly gave uture beneits. 9t is nly hen
the empl yee retires and bec mes eligible, that he acquires a vested right t
said beneits. (3arren v. COA)
! %#. is a legitimate subject 3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals

and ther rkers meet reas nably regulat ry standards, n such deprivati n
pr perty exists. ( 3r m ti n and anagement v. CA)
vi lati n pr perty rights, the state can regulate entry int business as
l ng as it is reas nable.
3 lice 3 er, in the interest eneral Welare and 3ublic Health, AY
impair c ntracts. (Beltran v. Sec. Health)
$# . are like ther c ntracts, subject t the verriding demands,
needs and interests the greater number as the State may determine in the
exercise its p lice p er. ( BHA9 v. City ay r 3aranaque)
1A 2010
0m
3 lice p er, need n t pr ve exact scientiic c nclusiveness r research, as
l ng as the exercise hich remains reas nable and n t unduly ppressive.
(iras l v. D3WH)
&*%' ! #*. While the right rkers t security tenure is
guaranteed by the C nstituti n, its exercise may be reas nably regulated
pursuant t the p lice p er the State t saeguard health, m rals, peace,
educati n, rder, saety, and the general elare the pe ple.
1*+&%#!
m uarantees legal equality all be re the la
m gqual pr tecti n clause can als be vi lated n t by denial equality but
by creating a system that can ster inequality (3e ple v. aera)
m "he guaranty gqual 3r tecti n is n t vi lated by a legislati n based n
reas nable classiicati n.
&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SPg

1.m 9t must rest n */ #%+ distincti ns
2.m 9t must be ($# t the purp se the la
3.m 9t must +%$%) t existing c nditi ns nly
4.m 9t must apply 1*++' t all members the same class
it d es n t demand abs lute equality am ng residents, it merely requires
that all pers ns similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances; b th as t privileges c nerred and liabilities en rced. ("iu v.
CA)
+%#
"he dierence in status beteen citizens and aliens c nstitute a basis r
reas nable classiicati n in the exercise p lice p er. SC held that the
disputed la as enacted t remedy an actual threat and danger t natl
ec n my p sed by alien d minance and c ntr l the retail trade, and uld
ree citizens r m such d minance and c ntr l. (9ch ng v. Hernandez)
"he 350.00 ee is unreas nable because it ails t c nsider valid substantial
dierences in situati n am ng individual aliens h are required t pay it.
"he same am unt is c llected r m every alien, hether he is a casual r
permanent empl yee, parttime r ulltime, an empl yee r an executive.
(aillegas v. Hui Chi ng 3a H )
"he term n nresident alien and its bverse resident alien, must be given
their technical c nn tati n under
ur la
n immigrati n. "here lies
substantial dierences beteen the t . (eneral illing C rp. v. " rres)
r
m
"he purp se the la is t all the emergence y unger bl

g vernments, s the la as declared valid. (Dumla v. COgPgC)
d in l cal
#). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences

make the distincti n reas nably related t the valid purp se. "he pr hibiti n
men bartenders as attributed t the danger present in their rkplace,
ith the bject pr tecting the m rals men. ( esart v. Cleary)
0%#( )%##&. "ax sh uld n t be passed r speciic c mpanies/entities
nly, r it ill n t be applicable t uture c nditi ns, and ill serve t exclude
any subsequently established sugar central, the same class as plainti,
r m the c verage the tax. (Orm c Sugar C . v. "reasurer Orm c)
9t is inherent in the p er t tax that a state be ree t select the subjects
taxati n, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities hich result r m a
singling ut ne particular class r taxati n, r exempti n inringe n
c nstituti nal limitati n. (Sis n r. v. Ancheta)
Special grant tax exempti n in av r
class legislati n. (Chavez v. 3C)
the arc z heirs ill c nstitute
$/+%#(.ust h 3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3ACO is

vi lative equal pr tecti n is n t clearly explained. "he mere act that s me
gambling activities like c ckighting (3D 449) h rseracing (A 306, amended
by A 983), seepstakes, l ttery and races (A 1169 amended by B3 42) are
legalized under certain c nditi ns, hile thers are pr hibited, d es n t render
these las, speciically 3D 1869, unc nstituti nal.
"he g3C d es n t mean that all things called by the same name sh uld be
treated the same ay. (Basc v. 3ACO)
&% % . Dismissal a case against ne deendant must apply t
thers i n reas nable distincti ns exist. (epublic v. Sandiganbayan)
$+ .9nequalities hich result r m the singling ut ne
particular class r tax exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. "here is
a substantial distincti n beteen the h meless p r and the h meless less
p r because the 2nd gr up can a rd t rent h uses in the meantime.
(" lentin v. Sec. inance)
3 lice p er inv lves the duty t pr vide r the real needs the pe ple.
"he Burial Assistance 3r gram is a relie pauperism. 3aupers may be
reas nably classiied. Dierent gr ups may receive varying treatment.
Statutes have been passed giving rights and beneits t the disabled and the
less rtunate. (Binay v. D ming )
1A 2010
* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m

ther pers ns charged criminally r administratively ins ar as preventive
suspensi n is c ncerned. 3 licemen carry eap ns and the badge la hich
can be used t harass r intimidate itnesses against them, and there re
needs t be suspended in rder t pr tect itnesses against him. (Himagan v.
3e ple)
#&% .a ranchise is n t in the strict sense a simple c ntract but rather
it is m re imp rtantly, a mere privilege especially in matters hich are ithin
the g vernment's p er t regulate and even pr hibit thr ugh the exercise
the p lice p er. "hus, a gambling ranchise is alays subject t the exercise
p lice p er r the public elare. (Pim v. 3acquing)

"here is substantial distincti n beteen landbased and seabased ilipin
verseas rkers in terms , am ng ther things, rk envir nment, saety,
dangers and risks t lie and limb, and accessibility t s cial, civic, and
spiritual activities. (C nerence aritime anning Agencies v. 3OgA)
9t is gr ssly unair t exempt ne similarly situated litigant r m pr secuti n
ith ut all ing the same exempti n t the thers. "he equal pr tecti n
guarantee perates against uneven applicati n legal n rms s that all
pers ns under similar circumstances uld be acc rded the same treatment.
(egala v. Sandiganbayan)
"he per rmance legitimate and even essential duties by public icers
has never been an excuse t ree a pers n validly in pris n. uncti ns and
duties the ice are n t substantial distincti ns hich lit the accused r m
the class pris ners interrupted in their reed m and restricted in liberty
m vement. (3e ple v. al sj s)
"here are substantial dierences beteen big invest rs h are lured t
establish their industries in the secured areas c mpared t business
perat rs utside the area. "he irst can give ec n mic impact that is nati nal
in sc pe, the ther, merely l cal ("iu v. CA)
+&$$*#%&%# ."a and radi are m re pervasive and persuasive;
print media d es n t really reach the hardt reach places in the 3hilippines
hile access t "a and radi c ntent is practically simultane us ("gPgBA3 v.
COgPgC)
"he payment the civil liability is n t made a c nditi n t
pr bati n. 3etiti ners applicati n r pr bati n had already been granted.
Satisacti n his civil liability as n t made a requirement be re he c uld
avail pr bati n, but as a c nditi n r his c ntinued enj yment the
same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant

rests up n the discreti n the trial c urt. (S rian v. CA)
+&%# . incumbents running r the same p siti n are n t c nsidered
resigned because the intenti n the la is t all them t c ntinue serving
their c nstituents and av id a disrupti n in the delivery essential services.
"h se running r dierent p siti ns are c nsidered resigned because they are
c nsidered t have aband ned their present p siti n by their act running
r ther p sts. (Aguinald v. COgPgC)
"he purp se the singling ut is t ensure the impartiality the electi n
icers by preventing them r m devel ping amiliarity ith the pe ple in the
place assigned t them. "he purp se the la is t break an imp rtant link in
the chain c rrupti n. With ut the c mplicity such icials, largescale
v ter registrati n an malies can hardly be carried ut. (De uzman v.
COgPgC)
"here are substantial distincti ns beteen glective and App intive Oicials:
1: elective icials ccupy ice by the maj ritys mandate they can nly be
rem ved under stringent circumstances; app intive icials h ld ice by
virtue designati n by an app inting auth rity
2: App intive icials are n t all ed t engage in partisan p litical activity,
hile elective icials bvi usly may (arinas v. gxecutive Secretary)
1*+'!1*+2.pers ns h rk r equal qualiicati ns, skill,
e rt and resp nsibility, under similar c nditi ns, sh uld be paid equally.
Salaries sh uld n t be used as an enticement r reignhires, t the
prejudice l calhires. (9S v. Quisumbing)
#+'."he death penalty la applies t all pers ns and all classes
pers ns. particular gr up r classes pers ns are identiied by the la
against h m the death penalty shall be exclusively imp sed. (3e ple v.
ercad )

5

6

7
3 -

73
3
3
3

6
1A 2010
3
3

0&,%#9 search is reas nable

%"+%)
%*"+%) %*
#*
#
#
#8/'
,*,

%"

equirements:
1) 9ncidental t
#)%"%)*+9
1) Subp ena
1) 9ssued up n
laul arrest

duces tecum
pr bable cause
(Sec 12, ule
1) SO3 (3e ple
2) Administrative
2) 3ers nally
126 ules
vs. arti)
9nspecti n
examined by the
C urt)
2) Security Check
judge
2) 3lain vie
(3e ple vs
3) ving vehicle B ngcaraan)
3) gxamined
4) C nsented

under ath and
arrantless
airmati n

search
4) 3articularly
5) Cust ms
describing the
searches
place t be
6) St p and risk
searched and the
7) gxigent and
pers ns r things
t be seized
gmergency
(Sec. 2 Art. 999,
circumstances
y v. B9)
8) suspici nless
5) arrant must
drug tests
n t be r m re
than ne ense
(evised OC)

)$!$ &#)
*,
(a) " pr tect the privacy and sanctity his pers n, pr perty and h use
(b) " guarantee against unlaul arrest and ther rms restraint.
Secti n 2 is pr tecti n against unlaul searches by
and d es n t pr tect citizens r m unlaul searches and seizures by
private individuals. (3e ple v. arti)

**remedy may be und in the Civil C de and in the 3C.

& an examinati n a mans h use r ther buildings r premises, r
his pers n r his vehicle ith a vie t the disc very c ntraband, illicit
and st len pr perty r s me evidence guilt t be used in pr secuti n a
criminal acti n r s me crime r ense charged.
#% &: &;<
A utine Checkp int d es n t intrude n a m t rists right t ree passage
ith ut interrupti n, but it inv lves nly a brie detenti n travelers during
hich the vehicles ccupants are required t anser a brie questi n r t .
As l ng as the vehicle is neither searched, n r its ccupants subjected t a
b dy search, and the inspecti n the vehicle is limited t a visual search,
r utine checks cann t be regarded as vi lative an individuals right against
unreas nable search. (aalm nte v. en. De ailla)
#)$*( %#(."he perative c ncepts in the mandat ry drug
testing are "rand mness" and "suspici nless." 9n the case pers ns charged
ith a crime be re the pr secut r's ice, a mandat ry drug testing can
never be rand m r suspici nless.
When pers ns suspected c mmitting a crime are charged, they are singled
ut and are impleaded against their ill. "he pers ns thus charged, by the
bare act being haled be re the pr secut r's ice and peaceably
submitting themselves t drug testing, i that be the case, d n t necessarily
c nsent t the pr cedure, let al ne aive their right t privacy.
" imp se mandat ry drug testing n the accused is a blatant attempt t
harness a medical test as a t l r criminal pr secuti n, c ntrary t the
stated bjectives A 9165. Drug testing in this case uld vi late a
pers ns' right t privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. 999 the C nstituti n.
W rse still, the accused pers ns are veritably rced t incriminate
themselves. (SS v. DDB)

%=* as l ng as the pr perty is in c ntr l the pers n arrested, even i
he d es n t p ssess nership, such may be seized (Burg s v. Chie Sta)
St pping a pers n, even th ugh an arrest is n t c mmenced, is a seizure
("erry v. Ohi )
t deprive a pers n his liberty by legal auth rity. 9t is he taking
a pers n int cust dy in rder that he may be b und t anser r the
c mmissi n an ense.
9n arrest cases there must be:
1A 2010
1.m pr bable cause that a crime has been c mmitted

2.m and that the pers n t be arrested c mmitted it,
*Which c urse can exist ith ut any sh ing that evidence the
crime ill be und at premises under that pers n's c ntr l. (Webb v.
De Pe n)
& # an rder in riting issued in the name the epublic
signed by a judged and directed t a peace icer c mmanding him t search
r pers nal pr perty described therein and bring it be re the c urt.
9n search cases, t c nclusi ns must be supp rted by substantial evidence:
1.m that the items s ught are in act seizable by virtue being
c nnected ith criminal activity, and
2.m that the items ill be und in the place t be searched. 9t is n t als
necessary that a particular pers n be implicated. (Webb v. De Pe n)
A search arrant may be issued r the search and seizure :
1.m pr perty subject the ense
2.m pr perty st len r embezzled and pr ceeds/ruits the ense
3.m pr perty used r intended t be used as the mans c mmitting an
ense
Secti n 2, ule 126 the ules C urt, d es n t require that the pr perty
t be seized sh uld be ned by the pers n against h m the search arrant
is directed. 9t may r may n t be ned by him. 9n act, under subsecti n [b]
the ab vequ ted Secti n 2, ne the pr perties that may be seized is
st len pr perty. ecessarily, st len pr perty must be ned by ne ther
than the pers n in h se p ssessi n it may be at the time the search and
seizure. Onership, there re, is n c nsequence, and it is suicient that
the pers n against h m the arrant is directed has c ntr l r p ssessi n
the pr perty s ught t be seized. (Burg s Sr. v. Chie Sta)
3artially 9nvalid Warrant
pr visi n la exists hich requires that a arrant, partially deective in
speciying s me items s ught t be seized yet particular ith respect t the
ther items, sh uld be nulliied as a h le. (icr s t v. axic rp)
9n cases here a dierent name is inserted as the ner a pr perty t be
searched, it is nly a harmless deect, as l ng as it is nly a search the
premises and n t pers ns.
When a judge issues alm st exactly the same arrant as the ld ne,
herein nly the municipality r number the address is changed, the ld
arrant is deemed rev ked by the ne arrant, and it is presumed that the
ne arrant is issued in rder t c rrect s me deect in the ld arrant.
As t Assailing the 9llegality a Seizure:

9t is ell settled that the legality a seizure can be c ntested
by the
party h se rights have been impaired thereby, and that the bjecti n t an
unlaul search and seizure is
and cann t be availed by
third parties. (St nehill v. Di kn )
"he right t
bject t the admissi n said papers in evidence bel ngs

t the c rp rati ns, t h m the seized eects bel ng, and may
n t be inv ked by the c rp rate icers in pr ceedings against them in their
individual capacity. (St nehill v. Di kn )
As t 9llegally Obtained gvidence:
As t aAP9D legal items that have been illegally seized, it sh uld be returned
t the ners. But hen illegal items such as unlicensed irearms r drugs are
illegally btained, it is kept in r in cust dy la. "hey are
inadmissible as evidence in c urt, but since they are pr hibited items under
la, the pers n h as in cust dy such as n t the legal ner, and the
items must be c niscated by la.

#! a ritten rder made n behal the state and is based
up n a c mplaint issued pursuant t a statute r rule and hich c mmand la
en rcement t arrest a pers n and bring him be re a c urt.

"he applicant must sh :
1.)m "hat the items s ught are in
act seizable by virtue

being
c nnected
ith
criminal activity; and
2.)m "hat the items ill be und
in the place t be searched.
"he judge must c nduct a pers nal,
searching
examinati n

the
applicant and his itnesses.
3rescripti n: 10 days

"he applicant must sh
1.)m 3r bable cause that an
ense has been c mmitted.
2.)m "hat the pers n t
be
arrested c mmitted it.
"he judge need n t c nduct a

pers nal examinati n the applicant
and itnesses. He may rely n the
aidavits the itnesses and the
rec mmendati n the pr secut r.
3rescripti n: until served.
9 r s me reas n, a search as n t c mpleted n the irst day it as

undertaken, such as the v luptu usness the material t be seized, the
search n the 2nd day is deemed a c ntinuati n the riginal search. "he
1A 2010
search may be per rmed any day ithin the 10day prescriptive peri d.
(ustang Pumber)
9t is nly the udge h may issue arrants search and arrest. ay rs may
n t exercise this p er, n r may it be d ne by a mere pr secuting b dy. "he
ne excepti n t this rule is the dep rtati n illegal and undesirable aliens,
hich arrest may be issued r rdered by the 3resident r the C mmissi n
9mmigrati n. (Salazar v. Achac s )
C mmissi ner 9mmigrati n cann t issue arrants arrest in aid merely
his investigat ry p er. H ever, he may rder the arrest an alien in rder
t carry ut a dep rtati n rder that has already bec me inal. (B ard
C mmissi ners v. Dela sa)

An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and
detached and must be capable determining hether pr bable cause exists.

1*% % !+%)#
A search arrant must c n rm strictly t the requirements the reg ing
c nstituti nal and statut ry pr visi ns. "hese requirements are:
(1) the arrant must be issued up n pr bable cause;
(2) the pr bable cause must be determined by the judge himsel and n t by
the applicant r any ther pers n;
(3) in the determinati n pr bable cause, the judge must examine, under
ath r airmati n, the c mplainant and such itnesses as the latter may
pr duce; and
(4) the arrant issued must particularly describe the place t be searched and
pers ns r things t be seized. ( y v. B9)

9//+* such reas ns, supp rted by acts and circumstances, as
ill arrant a cauti us man in the belie that his acti n and the means taken
in pr secuting it, are legally just and pr per. Dg"g9gD BY "Hg AC"S O
gACH CASg.
9t must be pr bable cause s mething speciic (St nehill vs. Dl kn )
9t must be deined 9n relati n t the acti n hich 9t justiies
ere c nclusi ns la d n t establish pr bable cause (C rr vs. Pising)
(Burg s vs. Chie Sta)
m
3r bable cause r an arrest acts and circumstances hich uld
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an
ense has been c mmitted by the pers n s ught t be arrested.

m
3r bable cause r a search acts and circumstances hich uld
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an
ense has been c mmitted and that the
bjects s ught in

m
c nnecti n ith the ense are in the place s ught t be searched.

9t als demands that n less than pers nal kn ledge by the
c mplainant r his itnesses the acts up n the issuance a
search arrant may be justiied. (20th Century x ilm C rp. v. CA,
Burg s Sr. v. Chie Sta, C rr v. Pising; riginally r m Henry v.
S 1959)
3r bable Cause need n t be based n clear and c nvincing evidence guilt,
neither n evidence establishing guilt bey nd reas nable d ubt, and deinitely
n t n evidence establishing abs lute certainty guilt.
Be re issuing
arrants arrest, judges merely determine

guilt an accused. 9n d ing s , judges d n t c nduct a
hearing t determine the existence pr bable cause. "hey just

the initial determinati n the pr secut r inding a pr bable cause t
see i it is supp rted by . [O"g: need n t p int t a
speciic ense] (Webb v. De Pe n)
"he testim nies
the t
itnesses, c upled ith the
bject and
d cumentary evidence they presented, are suicient t establish the existence
pr bable cause. "he determinati n pr bable cause d es n t call r the
applicati n rules and standards pr that a judgment c nvicti n
requires ater trial n the merits. (icr s t v. axic rp)
3r bable cause is c ncerned ith pr bability, n t abs lute r even m ral
certainty. "he pr secuti n need n t present at this stage pr bey nd
reas nable d ubt. "he standards judgment are that reas nably prudent
man, n t the exacting calibrati ns a judge ater a ullbl n trial. (icr s t
v. axic rp)
r purp ses issuing a arrant, nly a judge can determine pr bable cause.
r purp ses iling an in rmati n, the pr secuti n determines pr bable
cause. Determinati n pr bable cause during a preliminary investigati n is
an executive uncti n. (3e ple v. CA)
Suiciency Aidavit
When the Aidavit the applicant the c mplaint c ntains suicient acts
ithin his pers nal and direct kn ledge, it is suicient i the judge is satisied
that there exist pr bable cause; hen the applicant's kn ledge the acts is
mere hearsay, the aidavit ne r m re itnesses having a pers nal
kn ledge the act is necessary. (Alvarez v. C9)
3r secut rs Certiicati n
"he judge may rely up n the iscal's certiicati n the existence pr bable
cause and, n the basis there , issue a arrant arrest. But such
1A 2010
certiicati n d es n t bind the judge. "he issuance a arrant is n t a mere

ministerial uncti n; it calls r the exercise judicial discreti n n the part
the issuing magistrate. Secti n 6, ule 112 the ules C urt pr vide that:
9 n the ace the in rmati n the judge inds n pr bable cause, he may
disregard the iscals certiicati n and require the submissi n the aidavits
itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence a
pr bable cause. (3lacer v. aillanueva)
By itsel the pr secut rs certiicati n pr bable cause is ineectual. 9t is the
rep rts, aidavits and ther supp rting d cuments behind the pr secut rs
certiicati n hich are material t assisting the judge in making his
determinati n. "he extent the udge's pers nal examinati n the rep rt
and its annexes depends n the circumstances each case. "he pers nal
determinati n is vested in the udge by the C nstituti n. 9t can be as brie r
as detailed as the circumstances each case require(Pim Sr. v. elix)
udges must O" rely s lely n the rep rt the pr secut r they must
evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments hich may c nsist
aidavits, transcripts, and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the
pr secut rs certiicati n ( berts v. CA)

59 #+0$%#%#!-*)(

nder existing las, arrants arrest may be issued:
(1) by the etr p litan "rial C urts (e"Cs) except th se in the ati nal
Capital egi n, unicipal "rial C urts ("Cs), and unicipal Circuit "rial
C urts (C"Cs) in cases alling ithin their exclusive riginal jurisdicti n;
in cases c vered by the rule n summary pr cedure here the accused ails
t appear hen required;
and in cases iled ith them hich are c gnizable by the egi nal "rial
C urts ("Cs);
# &# % * nly i the judge is satisied ater an examinati n in
riting and under ath the c mplainant and the itnesses, in the rm
searching questi ns and ansers, that a pr bable cause exists and that there
is a necessity placing the resp ndent under immediate cust dy in rder n t
t rustrate the ends justice.
3r bable cause is 3gSOAPPY Dg"g9gD by the judge ater examinati n
under ath r airmati n the c mplainant/applicant and all itnesses h
have pers nal kn ledge the ense under ath and in riting. (Allad v.
Di kn )
(2) by the etr p litan "rial C urts in the ati nal Capital egi n (e"Cs
6
m
C) and the "Cs in cases iled ith them ater appr priate preliminary
investigati ns c nducted by icers auth rized t d s
ther than judges
e"Cs, "Cs and C"Cs.

nder these c urts, it has been held that: "he judge is # 1*%)
, #++' 0$%# &$,+%## #) % %# ll ing
Seaestablished d ctrine and pr cedure, he shall
1.m 3ers nally evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments
submitted by the iscal regarding the existence pr bable cause
and, n the basis there , issue a arrant arrest; r
2.m 9 n the basis there he inds n pr bable cause, he may
a.m disregard the iscal's rep rt and require the submissi n
supp rting aidavits itnesses t aid him in arriving at a
c nclusi n as t the existence pr bable cause, O
b.m pers nally examine the applicant and itnesses t
determine pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar, berts v.
CA)
"he judge is n t required t pers nally examine the c mplainant and his
itnesses and n the basis there issue a arrant arrest. He may als rely
n the iscals rep rt r i n the basis there he inds n pr bable cause he
may disregard the iscals rep rt and require the submissi n supp rting
aidavits itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence
pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar) But it may n t be delegated t a clerk
(Bache v. uiz)
What is required is and n t
(S liven v. udge akasiar)
**Bernas rec mmends c mparing the d ctrine r m S liven ith the d ctrine
r m Bache and C . v. uiz
What the C nstituti n undersc res is the exclusive and pers nal resp nsibility
the issuing judge t satisy himsel the existence pr bable cause.
(S liven v. udge akasiar)
"he judge must examine the c mplainant and his itnesses under ath r
airmati n. "his has been interpreted as requiring a pers nal and n t merely
delegated examinati n by the judge r by the pr per icer, because the
purp se the examinati n is t c nvince the judge r icer himsel and n t
any ther individual. (Bache and C . v. uiz; Alvarez v. C urt)
A judge cann t rely
n the certiicati n r rec mmendati n a
pr secut r that pr bable cause exists r the purp se issuing a arrant. By
itsel, the 3r secut rs certiicati n pr bable cause is ineectual. "he judge
1A 2010
must l k at the rep rt, the aidavits, the transcripts sten graphic n tes (i
any) and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the 3r secut rs certiicati n.
(Pim v. elix)
"est Suiciency hether it had been dran in such a manner that perjury
c uld be charged i such is untrue.
gxaminati n c mplainant must be in the rm searching questi ns and
ansers in rder t determine the existence pr bable cause. (Silva v. "C
egr s)
"he reading the sten graphic n tes t resp ndent udge did n t c nstitute
suicient c mpliance ith the c nstituti nal mandate pers nal examinati n
r by that manner resp ndent udge did n t have the pp rtunity t
bserve
the demean r the c mplainant and his itness. "hese ere imp rtant in
arriving at a s und inerence n the questi n /n there as pr bable cause.
(Bache & C . 9nc v. uiz)
3ers nal gxaminati n gvidence:
"he presentati n the master tapes the c pyrighted ilms r m hich the
pirated ilms ere allegedly c pied, as necessary r the validity search
arrants against th se h have in their p ssessi n the pirated ilms. "his
linkage the c pyrighted ilms t the pirated ilms must be established t
satisy the requirements pr bable cause. ere allegati ns as t the
existence the c pyrighted ilms cann t serve as basis r the issuance a
search arrant. (20th Century x ilm v. CA)
90$%#)*#) #)!!%$%#

Searching Questi ns:
Warrant issued ill be declared i the judge d es n t ask SgACH9
Q gS"9OS, and merely asks curs ry questi ns that mirr r the applicati n
iled by the c mplainant r itness, such as:
Mm Questi ns that are simple yes r n questi ns pertaining t
basic matters like identity and things t be seized, already
c ntained in the applicati n r search arrant iled.
Mm Questi ns that are r utinary and very br ad. (Silva v. 3residing
udge "C egr s Occidental)
Oath an utard pledge, given by pers n taking it, that his attestati n r
pr mise is made under immediate sense resp nsibility t d. (Alvarez vs.
C9)
Airmati n a s lemn and rmal declarati n that an aidavit is true, this
being substituted r an ath in certain cases. Here, there is n inv cati n
d r a supreme being.
66
m
A search arrant must n t nly be based n pr bable cause but als must be
based n an applicati n supp rted by ath the applicant and the itnesses
he may pr duce. 9ts purp se is t c nvince the c mmitting magistrate the
existence pr bable cause.
"he ailure
the itness t
menti n particular individuals d es n t
necessarily pr ve that he had n pers nal kn ledge speciic illegal
transacti ns the Organizati n, r the itness might be acquainted ith
speciic transacti ns, even i the names the individuals c ncerned ere
unkn n t him. (Central Bank v. re)
"he examining judge has t take dep siti ns in riting the c mplainant and
the itnesses he may pr duce and t attach them t the rec rd. Such ritten
dep siti n is necessary in rder that the judge may be able t pr perly
determine the existence r n nexistence pr bable cause, and t h ld liable
r perjury the pers n giving it i it ill be und later that his declarati ns are
alse. (3e ple v. amaril)
-9%&*+%'! &%,%#
.A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized
hen the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill rdinarily
all and by hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search
and seizure. (Bache & C . v. uiz)

Secti n 1, paragraphs 3, Article 999 the C nstituti n, and secti n 97
eneral Orders, . 58 pr vide that the !!%)"% t be presented, hich shall
serve as the basis r determining hether pr bable cause exist and hether
the arrant sh uld be issued, must c ntain a particular descripti n the
place t be searched and the pers n r thing t be seized. "hese pr visi ns
are mandat ry and must be strictly c mplied. (Alvarez v. C9) 9t must O" be
t
general. (St nehill v. Di kn )
"he purp se and intent this requirement is t limit the things t be seized
t
nly th se particularly described in the search arrant t leave the
icers the la ith n discreti n regarding hat articles they sh uld seize,
t the end that unreas nable searches and seizures, r abuses, may n t be
c mmitted. (C rr v. Pising)
3urp se r this requirement is t prevent abuse by the icer en rcing the
arrant by leaving him ith n discreti n as t h
r hat t search r
seize. (Bernas)
1A 2010
9t is n t required that technical precisi n

descripti n be required,
particularly here, by the nature the g ds t be seized, their descripti n
must be rather general, since the requirement a technical descripti n uld
mean that n arrant c uld issue. (3e ple v. "ee)
/>& %=)
9t must be speciic as ar as the circumstances ill rdinarily all .
(icr s t v. axic rp) 9t is n t required that a technical descripti n be given
because that uld mean that O arrant c uld issue. (Alvarez v. C9)
A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized
hen:
a.m the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill
rdinarily all ,
b.m
r hen the descripti n expresses a c nclusi n act n t la by
hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search and
seizure.
c.m
r hen the things described are limited t th se, hich bear direct
relati n t the ense r hich the arrant is being issued. (Bache
& C . 9nc. v. uiz)
As t hat is t be taken, n thing is let t the discreti n the icer
executing the arrant. "hus, the speciic pr perty t be searched r sh uld
be s particularly described as t preclude any p ssibility seizing any ther
pr perty. B ", the la d es n t require that the things t be seized must be
described in precise and minute detail as t leave n r m r d ubt n the
part searching auth rities.(aallej v. CA)
"he articles subject the search and seizure need n t be s invariant as t
require abs lute c nc rdance beteen th se seized and th se described in the
arrant. Substantial similarity th se articles described as a class r species
uld suice. (Y use Alh ul v. CA)
/ ) &%,%#!$%
. 9t is a suicient descripti n i icer ith the arrant can, ith reas nable
e rt, ascertain and identiy the place intended, and distinguish it r m ther
places in the c mmunity.
9n the determinati n hether a search arrant describes the premises t
be searched ith suicient particularity, it has been held "that the executing
icer's pri r kn ledge as t the place intended in the arrant is relevant.
"he executing icer may l k t the aidavit in the icial c urt ile t
res lve an ambiguity in the arrant as t the place t be searched." (Burg s
Sr. v. Chie Sta)
6
m
"he particularity the place is essential t the issuance search arrants

t av id the exercise the en rcing icers discreti n. "he place t be
searched as set ut in the arrant, cann t be ampliied r m diied by the
icers n pers nal kn ledge the premises, r the evidence they
adduced in supp rt their applicati n r the arrant. "he c ntr lling
subject search arrants is the place indicated in the arrant itsel, and n t
the place identiied by the p lice. (3e ple v. rancisc )
"yp graphical grr r in arrant is all ed i the descripti n the place t be
searched can be distinguished r m ther places, but ill n t be all ed i it is
based n the hims r discreti n the peace icer.
Search a H use 2 itnesses are required t be present in the search the
h use, unless its laul ccupants are in the premises searched.

.9 in a arrant r a search the place there is a mistake in the identiicati n
the ner, the arrant is n t invalidated i it is pr perly described. (rank
y v. B9)
& ,+
-##
As a (#+ *+, arrants must have a name and descripti n the
accused. "he p lice sh uld particularly describe the place t be searched and
the pers n r things t be seized henever and herever it is easible.
Warrants r apprehensi n unidentiied pers ns are v id, unless it c ntains
the best p ssible that ill enable the icer t identiy the
accused.
H ever, -# 4 # sh uld be the excepti n and n t the rule.
"he must be suicient t indicate clearly the pr per
pers n up n h m the arrant is t be served.
9t sh uld state: pers nal appearance, peculiarities, ccupati n, place
residence and ther circumstances by hich he may be identiied. Having the
address and the kn ing that the ne resp nsible ccupies and c ntr ls the
building is suicient in rmati n t acquire a search arrant. (3e ple v.
ael s )
A arrant arrest against 50 hn D es is the nature a general arrant
clearly vi lative at least the requirement particularity descripti n.
(3angandaman v. Casar)
r9#$* #/!$# !!#
1A 2010
A search arrant shall n t be issued but up n pr bable cause in c nnecti n

ith ne speciic ense. (St nehill v. Di kn )
', ! &
1.m Criminal Search requires pr bable cause.
m C nstructive Search(such as ?
) rder r
the pr ducti n b ks and papers. p n m ti n any party
sh ing g d cause and up n n tice t all ther parties, the c urt
may
rder t
pr duce and permit inspecti n and c pying
r
ph t graphing d cuments n t privilege hich c ntain evidence
material t any matter inv lved in the acti n (aterial Distribut rs v.
atividad)
m Administrative search c nducted t imp se a regulati n r la.
3r bable cause is determined acc rding t
the la being
implemented. 9 there is n c nsent, ne sh uld get a arrant
(Camara v. unicipal C urt)

"he PgS O 3OCgD g are mere t ls designed t
acilitate the
attainment justice and that strict and rigid applicati n rules hich uld
result in technicalities that tend t rustrate rather than pr m te substantial
justice must alays be av ided. (aallej v. CA)
HgCg
+%)#+ & #) %=*
"hus, in the extra rdinary events here arrant is n t necessary t eect a
valid search r seizure, r hen the latter cann t be per rmed except ith ut
arrant, hat c nstitutes a reas nable r unreas nable search r seizure
bec mes purely a judicial questi n, determinable r m the uniqueness the
circumstances inv lved, including the purp se the search r seizure,
, the manner in hich the search and
seizure as made, the place r thing searched and the character the
articles pr cured. (3e ple v. C9 izal)
A search arrant issued by a judge based n a a 3hilippine
C nstabulary icer h
is invalid. A search arrant must n t be issued based
n mere hearsay. "he judge must n t just rehash the statements but must
examine them cl sely and ascertain the existence a pr bable cause. ( an
v. nzales)
0&+* %#'*+
6
m
"he Bill ights rders the abs lute exclusi n illegally btained evidence.
Secti n 3 explicitly states that illegally
btained evidence shall be
inadmissible r any purp se in any pr ceeding. Articles seized based n an
invalid arrant may n t be intr duced as evidence in c urt. ( lasc v. 3a )
**"ake n te that this deense is purely pers nal.

9 &%#&%)#++!*+
1*%$#
1.m Search as c nducted because a valid arrest (i arrest arrant is
declared illegal r invalid, the ruit the p is n us tree d ctrine
excludes them r m being admitted int evidence)
2.m 9tem t be searched as ithin the arrestees cust dy r area
immediate c ntr l (the area ithin hich the pers n arrested c uld
reach r a eap n r evidence t destr y it).
3.m Search as c ntemp rane us ith arrest.
Arrest must precede that search; the pr cess cann t be reversed (alacat
vs. CA)
gxcepti n: A search substantially c ntemp rane us ith an arrest can precede
the arrest i the p lice have pr bable cause t make the arrest at the utset
the search (3e ple vs. "udtud citing 68 Am.ur 2d)
Accused as searched and arrested hile transp rting A crime as
actually being c mmitted and he as caught . "hus, a
search made up n his pers nal eects as incidental t a laul arrantless
arrest. (3e ple v. almstedt)
** te: 3 sadas v. CA said that such an instance might n t all under search
incidental t laul arrantless arrest.
** At the time the peace icers identiied themselves and apprehended the
petiti ner as he tried t lee, they did n t kn that he had c mmitted, r as
actually c mmitting the ense illegal p ssessi n irearms and
ammuniti ns. "hey just suspected that he as hiding s mething in the buri
bag. "hey did n t kn hat its c ntents ere. "he said circumstances did
n t justiy an arrest ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. 3 sadas,

! "
"#
Warrantless search the accused pers nal eects is valid because the
existence pr bable cause: the smell marijuana that emanated r m his
plastic bag, intelligence rep rts a Caucasian travelling n a bus smuggling
marijuana r m Sagada, and hen he as acting suspici usly and attempted
t lee hen asked t present his identiicati n papers during a r utine check
1A 2010
c nducted by ACO icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v.

almstedt)
A arrantless search n a petiti ner perating and selling timber hen his
business permit as suspended by the Dg is valid because he had n right
t p ssess, sell r disp se lumber pursuant t 3D 705. "he Dg is
auth rized t seize his lumber. (ustang Pumber v. CA)
59 %=*!"%)#&%#,+%#"%
1*%$#
1) 3 based n the valid arrantless arrest in hich the
p lice are legally present in the pursuit their icial duty.
2) "he evidence as
by the p lice h have the right
t be there.
3) "he evidence must be

4) 3 $ evidence ith ut urther search (3e ple
vs. aaldez) (See an vs. nzales)
Aside r m a search incident t a laul arrest, a arrantless search had been
upheld in cases m ving vehicles and the seizure evidence in plain vie,
as ell as the search c nducted at p lice r military checkp ints hich e
declared are n t illegal per se, and stressed that

$

(Aniag v. C melec)
An 0# %" &%*# c uld nly be res rted t i the
icers c nducting the search had reas nable r pr bable cause t believe
be re the search that either the m t rist as a la ender r that they
uld ind the instrumentality r evidence pertaining t the c mmissi n a
crime in the vehicle t be searched. "he existence pr bable cause justiying
the arrantless search is determined by the acts each case.
$

"he acti n then the p licemen unreas nably
intruded int petiti ner's privacy and the security his pr perty. (Aniag v.
C melec)
9 &!$"%#("%&+
"he imp rtant thing is that there as pr bable cause t c nduct the
arrantless search. (Caballes vs. CA)
Or search is c nducted in excepti nal circumstances (i.e. checkp ints)
(aalm nte vs. de ailla)
6m
Searches and seizures ith ut arrant are valid i made up n pr bable cause,
that is, up n a belie reas nably arising ut circumstances kn n t the
seizing icer, that an aut m bile r ther vehicle c ntains that hich by la
is subject t seizure and destructi n. (Carr ll v. nited States)
When it is n t practicable t secure a arrant because the vehicle can quickly
m ve ut the l cality r jurisdicti n in hich the arrant must be s ught,
then a search arrant is n t necessary s l ng as the seizing icer auth rity
truly believed that there is pr bable cause. (3e ple v. C9 izal, 3e ple v.
P H Wing)
"he rules g verning search and seizure a m ving vehicle have steadily
liberalized n the basis practicality. "his is s c nsidering that be re a
arrant c uld be btained, the place, things and pers ns t be searched must
be described t the satisacti n the issuing judgea requirement hich
b rders n the imp ssible in the case smuggling eected by the use a
m ving vehicle that can transp rt c ntraband r m ne place t an ther ith
impunity. (3e ple v. P H Wing)
9t is quite true the ASAC received ne such in rmati n several days r a
eek be re the enc unter; but the act that its agents ailed t
btain a
arrant in spite the time all ance is n t a sign that they have been remiss
in their duty. Because they lacked the necessary in rmati n (such as the
exact time/place here the search sh uld be made), ASAC c uld n t have
p ssibly secured a valid arrant even i they had reseen its c mpelling
necessity. (3e ple v. C9 izal)
"he prevalent circumstances the case und ubtedly bear ut the act that
the search in questi n as made as regards a m ving vehicle petiti ner's
vehicle as "lagged d n" by the apprehending icers up n identiicati n.
"here re, the p lice auth rities ere justiied in searching the petiti ner's
aut m bile ith ut a arrant since the situati n demanded immediate acti n.
(Asunci n v. CA)
irst all, even th ugh the p lice auth rities already identiied the petiti ner
as an alleged shabu dealer and c nirmed the area here he allegedly as
plying his illegal trade, they ere uncertain as t the time he uld sh up
in the vicinity. Sec ndly, they ere uncertain as t the type vehicle
petiti ner uld be in, taking int acc unt rep rts that petiti ner used
dierent cars in g ing t and r m the area. inally, there as pr bable cause
as the same p lice icers had a previ us enc unter ith the petiti ner, h
as then able t evade arrest.
When the vehicle as p inted t them by their c nidential in rmant, ith the
1A 2010
in rmati n that the ccupant there as carrying shabu, the peratives had
t act quickly. Otherise, they uld again l se their subject h m they
reas nably believed t be c mmitting a crime at that instance. "here uld be
n m re time r them t secure a search
arrant (3e ple v. Asunci n,
)
1*%$# !&2,%#
(1) gxistence excepti nal circumstances
(2) c nducted n a ixed area
(3) inspecti n limited t visual search
(4) ccupants n t subjected t physical r b dy search (caballes vs. CA)
Checkp ints need n t be ann unced because it uld be impractical, and it
uld rearn th se h intend t vi late the ban. gven s , badges
legitimacy checkp ints may still be inerred r m their ixed l cati n and the
regularized manner in hich they are perated. (3e ple v. gsca )
-9 ,# %" ! %( there must be a right hich the pers n has
kn ledge and such had intenti nally relinquished
1*%$# !!!&%"%"!%(
(1) 9t must appear that the right exists
(2) "he pers n inv lved had kn ledge, actual r c nstructive the
existence such right.
(3) Said pers n had an actual intenti n t relinquish the right.
(4) 9t must be underst d t c ver nly hat is included ithin the terms
the language (aer y vs. Payague)
When a pers n gives his c nsent t be searched, he aives his right against
arrantless searches and seizures. (3e ple v. Pacerna)
"he apprehending icers even s ught the permissi n petiti ner t search
the car, t hich the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu as disc vered
by virtue a valid arrantless search and the petiti ner himsel reely gave
his c nsent t said search, the pr hibited drugs und as a result ere
admissible in evidence. (Asunci n v. CA)
mere manicurist, the SC held that "he icers the la cann t be blamed
i they act n appearances. "here as a pers n inside h r m indicati ns
as ready t accede t their request. gven rdinary c urtesy uld preclude
them r m inquiring t
cl sely as t hy she as there.
r9* $ & . ade by a cust ms icer r ne deputized by
cust ms. "he mere act that a pers n in p ssessi n an item, hich duties
assigned t it have O" been paid, justiies the arrantless search; the item
is c nsidered vernment 3r perty because imp rt duties have n t been paid
ith prejudice t the vernment.
9mp rted g ds remain under the jurisdicti n Bureau Cust ms as
9mp rtati n 9s n t terminated. ("ari and Cust ms C de). BOC acquires
exclusive jurisdicti n ver imp rted g ds, r the purp ses en rcement
cust ms las, r m the m ment the g ds are actually in its p ssessi n r
c ntr l. (3apa vs. ag )
"he right against arrantless searches is aut matically in acc rdance
ith cust ms rules and regulati ns, hich is strictly bserved in internati nal
practice. "he search in an airp rt is made pursuant t r utine airp rt security
pr cedure, all ed under Sec. 9 A 6235 states: any h lder an airline
ticket and his baggage are subject t search r, and seizure , pr hibited
materials r substances. 3assengers reusing the search shall n t be all ed
t b ard. Once searched, and und t have illegal materials n them, a
pers n is caught , hich means he r she can be laully
arrested ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. Cant n)
9 ,#)
% 2*+
,*, !*+
(a) the general interest eective crime preventi n and detecti n and
(b) the pressing interest saety and selpreservati n hich permit the
icer t take steps t assure himsel that the pers n is n t armed that may
be used against him. (alacat v. CA)
"he right against arrantless searches and seizures is a purely pers nal right,
as such, n b dy else sh uld be able t aive the right r the accused.
' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable

vi lated hen a p lice icer st ps a suspect
ith ut pr bable cause t arrest, i the p lice
suspici n that the pers n has c mmitted, is c
a crime.
**H ever in P here a man identiied

hersel as the ie the ccupant and gave c nsent t the search and
v luntarily surrendered papers the absent ccupant but turned ut t be a
r their n pr tecti n, the p lice may per rm a quick surace search the
pers ns uter cl thing r eap ns i they have reas nable suspici n that the
pers n st pped is armed. #/+ * ,%&%# must be based n speciic
6r
m
1A 2010
searches and seizures is n t

n the street and searches him
icer has a reas nable
mmitting, r is ab ut t c mmit
and articulable acts.

While pr bable cause is n t required t c nduct a "st p and risk," it
nevertheless h lds that mere suspici n r a hunch ill n t validate a "st p and
risk." A (#*%# # must exist, in light the p lice icer's
, t arrant the belie that the pers n detained has
eap ns c ncealed ab ut him. ("erry v. Ohi , cited in alacat v. CA)
ule r St p and risk:
1.m 3 lice icer bserves
2.m that the pers n is engaged in s me type
criminal activity.
m 9 as a p liceman up n appr ach.
%m akes &
'm r his n r thers saety
**"he petiti ner as acting suspici usly, and hen the 93 icers
appr ached him and identiied themselves, the accused tried t lee ith his
buri bag, there as ,//+&* that he as c ncealing s mething illegal
in the bag and it as the right and duty the p lice icers t inspect the
same. (3 sadas v. CA)

?9 0%(# #) $(#&' &%&*$ #& urgency and exigency the
m ment dispenses the need r arrants
@9A#A * ,%&%#+ )*(
Sec. 36 A 9165 and its implementing rules and regulati ns (9), as
c uched, c ntain pr visi ns speciically directed t ards preventing a situati n
that uld unduly embarrass the empl yees r place them under a humiliating
experience. While every icer and empl yee in a private establishment is
under the la deemed rearned that he r she may be a p ssible subject
a drug test, n b dy is really singled ut in advance r drug testing. "he
rand m drug testing shall be undertaken under c nditi ns calculated t
pr tect as much as p ssible the empl yee's privacy and dignity. "he intrusi n
int the empl yees' privacy, under A 9165, is acc mpanied by pr per
saeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages test results, and is
relatively minimal.
**"he pr bablecause standard is peculiarly related t criminal investigati ns
and may be unsuited t determining the reas nableness administrative
searches here the vernment seeks t prevent the devel pment
hazard us c nditi ns. "he American C urt has held that a arrant and inding
pr bable cause are unnecessary in the public sch l c ntext because such
requirements uld unduly interere ith the maintenance the sit and
6
m
in rmal disciplinary pr cedures needed. (aer nia Sch Dist. a. Act n; B ard
gducati n v. garls: in justiying the reas nableness arrantless drug tests
in public sch ls)
$)'!#(!*+ %=*
Art 3, sec 2 pr tects n t nly th se h appear t be inn cent but als th se
h appear t be guilty but are nevertheless presumed inn cent until the
c ntrary is pr ved. (H3 arments v. CA)

9n the case at bar, the seizure as made ith ut any arrant. "he evidence
did n t justiy the arrantless search and seizure the resp ndents g ds.
"he petiti ners and the raiding party had en ugh time t apply r a judicial
arrant but they did n t d s , and thus t k thus t k the risk a suit r
damages. "here as n pr bable cause r the seizure. "he ant nness the
r ngul seizure justiies the aard exemplary damages. (H3 arments v.
CA)
& #) %=* :!"#*#)!",*, ;
When an rder is issued in virtue the pr visi ns ule 21, it pertains t a
civil pr cedure hich cann t be identiied r c nused ith the unreas nable
searches pr hibited by the C nstituti n.
But in the err ne us hyp thesis that the pr ducti n and inspecti n b ks
and d cuments a c mpany rdered by the C urt is tantam unt t a search
arrant, the pr cedure utlined by ule 21 and ll ed by a judge place
them the realm the pr hibited unreas nable searches.
9 a party in a case has interest in the b ks and d cuments in questi n, then
it means that they are material and imp rtant t the issues the case, and
that justice ill be better served i all the acts pertinent t the c ntr versy
are placed be re the trial c urt. (aterial Distribut rs v. atividad)
?

"he right against unreas nable searches and seizure guards against abuse
nly by ay t
much indeiniteness r breadth in the things required t be
particularly described; i the inquiry is
ne the demanding agency
(C ngress/Admin. B dy) is auth rized by la t make and the materials
speciied are relevant, the gist the pr tecti n being the requirement that
the discl sure s ught shall n t be unreas nable.
"he requirement pr bable cause supp rted by ath r airmati n, literally
applicable in case a arrant, is satisied in case an Order r 3r ducti n
(Subp ena Duces "ecum) by the C urts determinati n that the investigati n
is auth rized by C ngress r a purp se it can rder, and that the d cuments
1A 2010
s ught are relevant t the inquiry. (Oklah ma 3ress v. Walling)

3r bable cause up n the basis hich arrants are t be issued r area
c de en rcement inspecti ns is n t dependent n the inspect rs belie that a
particular delling vi lates the elements
the c de, but
n the
reas nableness the en rcement agencys appraisal c nditi ns in the area
as a h le. 9n n nemergency situati ns, a pers n has the right t insist that
the inspect rs btain a search arrant. (Camara v. unicipal C urt)
3
3

0&,%#9 arrest is reas nable
9
%#

equirements:
(1) 9ssued up n pr bable cause
(2) 3ers nally examined by the judge
(3) gxamined under ath and
airmati n
(4) 3articularly describing the place
t be searched and the pers ns r
things t be seized. (Secti n 2,
Article999)
(5) arrant must n t be r m re
than ne ense (evised ules
C urt)
iscal (judge pers nally
investigates)
unicipal trial c urt
unicipal circuit trial c urt
etr p litan circuit c urt (n nC)
With iscal, (judge l ks int
certiicati n and examines the
rec rds)
3r cess:
iscal makes a determinati n
pr bable cause (called "certiicati n")
6
m
9
%*#
ule 113, Sec 5 ules C urt:
(a) When in his presence, the pers n
t bearrested has c mmitted, 9s
actually c mmitting, r attemptingt
c mmit an ense (in lagrante
delict );
(b) When an ense has in act been
c mmitted and he has
acts 9ndicating that the
pers n t bearrested has c mmitted
it;
(c) When the pers n t be arrested is
a pris ner h hasescaped r m a
penal establishment r place here
he is:
Serving inal judgment
r
"emp rarily c nined hile case
ispending, r
gscaped hile being transerred
r m nec ninement t an ther.
udge l ks 9nt the certiicati n

(must include aidavits)
udge pers nally examines the
rec rds
udge is n t b und bythe iscal's
determinati n.

+%)#+
#
+(#+%&
An ense is c mmitted in the presence r ithin the vie an icer,
hen the icer SggS the ense, alth ugh at a distance, r HgAS the
disturbances created thereby and 3OCggDgD A" OCg t the scene there
( S vs. Sam nte)
Buybust perati n/ gntrapment perati ns
C ntinuing crime
m aalidity arrest may be challenged be re he enters his plea. "he
accused may m ve t quash the in rmati n be re arraignment.
#%#*%#( !!# . Subversi n being a c ntinuing ense, the arrest
the accused ith ut a arrant is justiied as it can be said that he as
c mmitting an ense hen arrested. "he crimes rebelli n, subversi n,
c nspiracy r pr p sal t c mmit such crimes in urtherance there r in
c nnecti n thereith c nstitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature c ntinuing crimes. AS such, there is n need r a arrant in rder
t make an arrest r th se c mmitting such crimes. ( mil v. am s)
"he C urt d es n t believe that the arrantless arrest alls ithin the
terms laul arrantless arrest Sec. 5(a): When 9 H9S 3gSgCg, the
pers n t be arrested has c mmitted, is actually c mmitting, r is attempting
t c mmit an ense. His arrest t k place 6 days ater the sh ting. either
c uld the arrest be reas nably regarded as eected When in act just been
c mmitted. re ver d es O" apply because urder is O"
a c ntinuing crime. ( v. CA)
3ar. (a) requires that the pers n be arrested: (1) ater he has c mmitted r
hile he is actually c mmitting r at least attempting t c mmit an ense,
(2) in the presence the arresting icer.
"hese requirements have n t been established in the case at bar. At the time
the arrest, accusedappellant as merely l king r m side t side and
h lding his abd men, acc rding t the arresting icers themselves. "here
as apparently n
ense that had just been c mmitted, r as being
1A 2010
actually c mmitted r at least being attempted in their presence. With ut the

evidence the irearm taken r m accused at the time his illegal arrest the
pr secuti n l st its m st imp rtant exhibit and must there re ail. (3e ple v.
eng te)
#+B#+)(
.One the C nstituti nal requirements r a valid search arrant r arrant
arrest is that it must be based n pr bable cause. "he existence pr bable
cause justiies the arrest and seizure ith ut arrant. "his c nstitutes
pers nal kn ledge under ule 113 the ules Criminal 3r cedure.
"hat petiti ners ere n t caught in the act d es n t make the arrest illegal.
3etiti ners ere und ith y ung b ys in their respective r ms, in s me
cases naked.
nder the circumstances, the C9D agents had reas nable
gr unds t believe that petiti ners had c mmitted ped philia. (Harvey v.
Deens rSantiag )
9n the case at bar, p lice bserved during their surveillance that the
petiti ner, having red eyes and bbling, as he alked near the Kal kan City
Cemetery, hich acc rding t their in rmati n as a hang ut drug addicts.
Acc rding t their experience, this suspici us behavi r as characteristic
drug addicts n a high. "he p lice there re had reas n t investigate him.
"hey appr ached the petiti ner, identiied themselves as p lice, and asked
hat he as h lding. When he resisted they asked him again. 9t as nly then
hen he all ed the examinati n his allet here the alleged marijuana
as und.
9llegality arrest may be cured hen accused v luntarily submitted t
the jurisdicti n the c urt by pleading n t guilty & the
illegality his arrest. (3e ple vs. gsc rdial)
3etiti ner eectively aived the inadmissibility evidence illegally btained
hen he ailed t raise the issue during trial. 9ssues n t raised during trial
cann t be pleaded r the irst time n appeal. (analili v. CA)
!!&! /%+. 9 ne p sts bail,
nes arrest (aelasc v. CA)
ne is r m questi ning deects
"he iling the petiti ners a petiti n t be released n bail sh uld be

c nsidered as a aiver any irregularity attending their arrest and
them r m questi ning its validity. (Harvey v. Deens rSantiag )
"he rule is that the right t preliminary investigati n is aived OPY hen
the accused ails t inv ke it be re r at the time entering a plea at the
6
m
arraignment. as persistent n his right t

BgOg his arraignment ( v. CA)
preliminary investigati n

*%!% #* &%##)
*+
"he arrest as d ne hile accused as simply descending the gangplank
a ship, ith n
utard indicati n that called r his arrest. He is O"
c mmitting a crime, n r ab ut t d s , n r just c mmitted ne. "here re
this d esnt all under the excepti ns stated in ule 113 the ules C urt.

"he evidence is inadmissible because the search as O" an incident a
laul arrest because there as O arrant arrest and the arrantless
arrest didnt all under the excepti ns under ule 113 the ules C urt. 9
a peace icer has at least 2 days t pr cure a Search/Arrest arrant ith the
name, descripti n the pers n t be arrested r the place t be searched, he
cann t just make a arrantless arrest r search. (3e ple v. Amminudin)
"he accused as arrested n the s le basis in rmati n r m a verbal
rep rt, hich d es n t all under the excepti ns stated in ules 113. "here is
O such pers nal kn ledge in this case. "he verbal rep rt led the auth rities
t suspect that the accused had c mmitted a crime. "hey ere still ishing r
evidence a crime n t yet ascertained. "he subsequent rec very the
subject irearm n the basis in rmati n r m the lips a rightened ie
cann t make the arrest laul.
9 an arrest ith ut a arrant is unlaul at the time it as made, generally
n thing that happened r as disc vered aterards can make it laul. "he
ruit a p is n us tree is necessarily als tainted. "he C nstituti n itsel
mandates that any evidence btained in vi lati n the right is inadmissible in
evidence. C nsequently, testim nies the arresting icers as t the
admissi ns made by the appellant cann t be used against him. (3e ple v.
Burg s)

89
33

7

859

3

0&,%#
1. Paul rder the C urt
1A 2010
2. When 3ublic Saety r Order requires it as prescribed by la.

0&+* %#' *+
m Bars admissi n illegally btained evidence.
estraint against unlaul searches and seizures applies nly against the
g vernment but n t n private individuals. 9 the evidence s ught t be
excluded as primarily disc vered and btained by a private pers n, acting in
a private capacity and ith ut participati n/interventi n State auth rities,
then the liberties guaranteed by the C nstituti n cann t be inv ked against
the State.
"est:
1.m gvidence primarily disc vered and
btained by private pers n
(subsequent veriicati n
evidence by State auth rities up n
request private individual is all ed).
2.m 3rivate pers n acted in private capacity.
3.m interventi n and participati n by the State auth rities in primary
disc very.(3e ple v. arti)

"he 9ntimacies beteen husband and ie d n t justiy any ne them
breaking the draers and cabinets the ther and in ransacking them r
telltale evidence marital inidelity. A pers n, by c ntracting marriage d es
n t shed his/her right t privacy as an 9ndividual. "he evidence seized by the
ie sh uld be returned t the husband, as it as taken ith ut his kn ledge
and c nsent. (Zulueta v. CA)

#%.%,,%#(
m A 4200 requires previ usly ritten judicial auth rizati n t be issued
up n ulillment requirements r the issuance a arrant eective r
nly 60 days.
%"&'!$$*#%&%#%()+,##" %#
nauth rized tape rec rdings teleph ne c nversati ns are n t admissible as
evidence. Absent a clear sh ing that b th parties t
the teleph ne
c nversati n all ed the rec rdings the same, the inadmissibility the
subject tapes is mandat ry under A 4200 (AntiWiretapping Pa). "ape
rec rdings can nly be made up n laul rder the C urt.
%/%%#
m t abs lute. "he state may inringe such by applying r a previ us
judicial auth rizati n in cases nati nal security r n njudicially hen
required by public saety, public rder r therise prescribed by la.
3urp se: 3r tecti n against the State. "he Bill
6
m
ights g verns the
relati nship beteen the individual and the State. 9ts c ncern is n t the
relati n beteen individuals, beteen a private individual and ther private
individuals. What the Bill ights d es is declare s me rbidden z nes in the
private sphere inaccessible t any p er h lder. r. Bernas during the
C nstituti nal C mmissi n.
O"g: 9 the search is made up n the request la en rcers, a arrant
must irst generally be secured i it is t pass the test c nstituti nality.
H ever, i the search is made at the behest r the initiative the pr priet r
a private establishment r its
n private purp ses, ith ut the
interventi n p lice auth rities, the right against unreas nable search and
seizure cann t be inv ked, r nly the act the private individual and n t
the la en rcers are inv lved.
%(%"&'%#$ ! *%#!%#(%#(##)%"%)*+
"he right t privacy d es n t bar all incursi ns int individual privacy. "he
right merely requires that the la be narr ly cused and a c mpelling
interest justiies such intrusi ns. 9ntrusi ns int
the right must be
acc mpanied by pr per saeguards and elldeined standards t prevent
unc nstituti nal invasi ns. Any la r rder that invades individual privacy ill
be subjected by the udiciary t strict certainty.
equisites r a Pa t intrude up n privacy an 9ndividual:
1.m Pa is narr ly cused
2.m A c mpelling interest justiies intrusi n
3.m 3r per saeguards
4.m Welldeined standards
(Ople v. " rres and K v. gDA)

*#) &5#)

++(+ %#!
%$ ."he C nstituti nal 9mmunity r m
unreas nable searches and seizures, being a pers nal ne, cann t be aived
by any ne except the pers n h se rights are invaded r ne h is
expressly auth rized t d s in his r her behal.
ec rds sh that the appellant as n t at the h use at the time his alleged
helper, all ed the auth rities t enter it. We ind n evidence that uld
establish the act that Puz rad s as indeed the appellants helper, r i she
as the helper, that the appellant had given her auth rity t
pen his h use in
his absence. (3e ple v. Damas )

"he case d es n t all ithin the excepti ns t arrantless search.
"he reas n r searching the h use herein petiti ners is that it as
1A 2010
rep rtedly being used as a hide ut and recruitment center r rebel s ldiers.
3ermissi n as indeed granted by a. Puisa aer y t enter the h use but nly
t ascertain the presence rebel s ldiers.
nder the circumstances it is undeniable that the p lice icers had ample
time t pr cure a search arrant but did n t. "he articles seized, having been
c niscated illegally, are pr tected by the exclusi nary principle and cann t be
used as evidence against the petiti ners in the criminal acti n against them
r illegal p ssessi n irearms. (Sps. aer y v. Payague)
-
3

7

3 3

% %#
m Oicial g vernmental restricti ns
n the press
r
ther rms

expressi n in advance actual publicati n r disseminati n like licensing
r cens rship.
Cens rship r pri r restraint is d ne by suppressing publicati n and
punishing as c ntempt urther publicati n. 9n determining the extent
c nstituti nal pr tecti n, it has been generally, 9 n t universally c nsidered
that it is the chie purp se the guaranty reed m press is t prevent
previ us restraints publicati n. (ear v. innes ta)
0$,+
1.m system licensing administered by an executive icer
2.m m vie cens rship vies are vehicle n t just r entertainment
but als r c mmunicati n
3.m judicial pri r restraint in the rm an injuncti n rder
"he pri r restraint principle is n t an unbending rule but admitted excepti ns
such as: WO9
1.m hen a nati n is at , publicati n hich may bstruct g vernment
recruitment
2.m publicati n / &#$%+
3.m materials %#&%%#( t acts vi lence t
verthr the g vernment
Als : sediti us speech, cens rship, elect ral pr cess
*$,%#!#"+%)%'.Any system pri r restraints expressi n
bears a heavy presumpti n against its c nstituti nal validity. "he vernment
thus carries the burden sh ing justiicati n r the en rcement such
restraint. (Y "imes v. S)

m
3"%# %,& . ncriminal pr cess, hich requires the pri r

submissi n a ilm t a cens r, av ids c nstituti nal inirmity nly i it takes
place under pr cedural saeguards designed t
bviate the dangers a
cens rship system.
S"ADAD O CgSOSH93 "O Bg aAP9D: B3
1.m "he /*)#!,"%#( that the ilm is unpr tected expressi n must
rest n the cens r.
2.m While the State may require advance submissi n all ilms, in rder
t pr ceed eectively t bar all sh ings unpr tected ilms, the
requirement cann t be administered in a manner hich uld lend
an eect !%#+%' t the cens r's determinati n hether a ilm
c nstitutes a pr tected expressi n because
nly a judicial
determinati n in an adversary pr ceeding ensures the necessary
sensitivity t reed m expressi n nly a pr cedure requiring a
judicial determinati n suices t imp se a valid inal restraint.
3.m "he pr cedure must als assure a ,$, inal judicial decisi n t
minimize the deterrent eect an interim and p ssibly err ne us
denial a license.
"he B ards evie r ving 3ictures and "elevisi n has the p er t
screen revie and examine all televisi n pr grams. "he exercise religi us
reed m can be regulated by the state hen it ill bring ab ut the clear and
present danger s me substantial evil, hich the state is duty b und t
prevent. H ever, there is n sh ing the type harm the tapes ill
bring. 3ri r restraint n speech cann t be justiied by hyp thetical ears but
nly by the sh ing a S BS"A"9ag and 99g" ga9P. (9C v. CA)
)$! ."he press is n t exempt r m the taxing p ers

the state, the la granted the press a privilege, they c uld take back such a
privilege any time. 9n ithdraing the privilege, the la merely subjects the
press t the same tax burden t hich ther businesses have ling ag been
subjected, "he aA" is n t a license tax and there re, n t a rm pri r
restraint. 9t is n t a tax n the exercise i the privilege, much less a
c nstituti nal right. (" lentin v. Sec. O inance)
&"(!%$%#+%+
reed m press and right t public in rmati n versus rights the accused
versus p er c urt t c ntr l pr ceedings the rights the accused must
prevail, there re, it may be pr hibited
*/ 1*#*#% $#
m "here are limits t the p er
1A 2010
the g vernment t
imp se rules
regulati ns penalizing the exercise the right reed m expressi n

! */ 1*#*#% $#
#(* #)#&' *+ hen it creates a danger us tendency, hich
the state has the right t prevent. "here must be a rati nal c nnecti n
beteen the speech and evil apprehended ex. 3e ple v. 3erez (inciting t
sediti n)
Mm ear must be r seri us evil that is seri us, imminent and high
pr bability seri us injury t the state
"he attack n vern reneral W d exceeds the b unds ree speech
and c mm n decency. "here as a sediti us tendency, hich c uld easily
pr duce disaecti n am ng the pe ple. "his case is an example the
applicati n the danger us tendency rule here all it requires, r speech t
be punishable is that there is a rati nal c nnecti n beteen speech and evil
apprehended. (3e ple v. 3erez)
+#) ##( *+ 9n determining hether a circumstance
uld c nstitute clear and present danger, the c urt must inquire hether in
each case the gravity the evil, disc unted by its impr bability, justiies an
invasi n ree speech t av id the danger.
"he questi n in every case is hether the rds used are used in such
circumstances and are such nature as t create a clear and present danger
that they ill bring ab ut the substantive evils that C ngress has a right t
prevent. 9t is a questi n pr ximity and degree.
Clear and present danger is n t dependent n the pr bability success
attempted verthr (Dennis v. S)
All rms c mmunicati n are entitled t the br ad pr tecti n the
reed m expressi n clause. ecessarily, h ever, the reed m televisi n
and radi br adcasting is s mehat lesser in sc pe than the reed m
acc rded t nespaper and print media due t its verhelming reach and
inluence. "he clear and present danger test, there re, must take the
particular circumstances br adcast media int acc unt. "he g vernment has
a right t be pr tected against br adcasts, hich incite the listeners t
vi lently verthr it. (gastern Br adcasting v. Dans)
+#&%#( ! # it is the c urts uncti n t balance public interest
and the reed ms aected by it, and t arrive at a judgment here the
greater eight shall be placed. i.e. A4880 limiting peri d partisan p litics
3r ves that c nstituti nal reed ms are n t abs lute hen there is a
substantial interest
sually used n t t prevent evil r danger
m gxcepti ns: c ntempt libel, bscenity and sediti us speech
6
m
%(,%"&' seeks t pr tect pe ple r m unarranted intrusi ns and

r ngul publicati n the private aairs and activities individuals hich
are utside the sphere legitimate public c ncern.
,&#)+&+&
3
"he COgPgC has O" been granted the right t supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practiti ners themselves their right t expressi n during
plebiscite peri ds. "here are n candidates inv lved in a plebiscite, there re
the evil s ught t be prevented in an electi n is n t present in a plebiscite.
(Sanidad v. COgPgC)
CA regulate time in br adcast media and space in papers, it d es n t
vi late reed m expressi n. "he general elare is aected here, public
interest demands that they kn their candidates. Als it uld perate r
a limited peri d nly.
gquality pp rtunity t pr er nesel r public ice is als clearly an
imp rtant value. "here re, n presumpti n invalidity arises ith respect t
exercises supervis ry r regulat ry auth rity n the part the COgPgC
r purp ses securing equal pp rtunity am ng candidates r p litical
ice, alth ugh such may result in limitati n the rights ree speech
and ree press. (ati nal 3ress Club v. COgPgC)
$,%(# %&2 ."he p sting decals and stickers in m bile places like
cars and ther m ving vehicles d es n t endanger any substantial
g vernment interest. "here is n clear public interest threatened by such
activity s as t justiy the curtailment the citizen's right ree speech and
expressi n. re ver, the reed m expressi n curtailed by the questi ned
pr hibiti n is n t s much that the candidate r the p litical party. "he
pr visi n 9s s br ad that it enc mpasses even the private Citizen's private
pr perty and the reed m t c nvince thers t agree ith him. (Adi ng v.
COgPgC)
What is inv lved here is simply a regulati n time, place and manner. Any
restricti n speech is nly incidental and it is n m re than necessary t
achieve the purp se pr m ting equality pp rtunity. What makes this
regulati n reas nable is that it applies nly t the electi n peri d. r c ntent
neutral restricti ns such as the case at bar, the O'Brien test must be used.
C%# pr vides that a vernment regulati n time, space and
manner (c ntentneutral regulati n) is suiciently justiied i: W
a.m 9 it is %%# the c nstituti nal p er the vernment,
b.m 9 it !* an imp rtant r substantial g vernmental
1A 2010
interest
9 the g vernmental interest is *#+) t the suppressi n
ree expressi n
d.m And i the incident %&%# n alleged irst Amendment
reed ms is n greater than is essential t the urtherance
that interest.
c.m
estricti ns that are c ntentneutral are n t cens rial. "he restricti n is n t

c ncerned ith the c ntent the speech thus, it needs nly a substantial
g vernmental interest t supp rt them. (Osmena v. COgPgC)
7 rand m p lling v ters as they c me ut the b ths, and
the disseminati n their results thr ugh mass media cann t be banned by
COgPgC, they argue that it might c nuse the v ters. But it d es n t all
under clear and present danger. "he evil t be prevented is merely
speculative. (ABS CB v. COgPgC)
a ban n surveys published 15days be re electi ns
r nati nal candidates and 7days be re electi ns r l cal candidates is a
direct and t tal suppressi n reed m expressi n am unting t pri r
restraint. "he g vernmental interest s ught t be pr m ted can be achieved
by ther means. (SWS v. COgPgC)

$$&%+ ,&
C mmunicati n h se s le purp se is t pr p se a c mmercial transacti n.
gx: Ads g ds r services
9t $* #/alse, misleading r illegal. (riedman v. gers), r pr p se
any illegal activity (3ittsburgh 3ress v. Human elati ns C mmissi n)
D es n t enj y the same pr tecti n as c re speech (c mmunicates p litical,
religi us and s cial ideas)
gven truthul and laul c mmercial speech may be regulated i they ulill the
. requirements *) # SDO
1.m "he g vernmental interest s ught t be served by the regulati n
must be */ #%+
2.m "he regulati n must be )%&+')"#& the g vernment's interest
3.m "he regulati n must n t be "/) (ubin v. C rs Breing)
"he city's nes rack p licy is neither c ntent neutral n r, "narr ly tail red."
"hus, regardless hether r n t it leaves pen ample alternative channels
c mmunicati n, it cann t be justiied as a legitimate time, place, r manner
restricti n n pr tected speech. (Cincinnati v. Disc very et rk)
"he rdinance pr hibiting the placing signs vi lates the residents' right t
ree speech. While said signs are subject t the municipality's p lice p er,
any regulati n may be challenged n the gr und that it restricts t
little
speech because its exempti ns discriminate n the basis Sign's message r
n the gr und that it pr hibits t
much pr tected speech.
"he rdinance cann t be justiied as time, place manner restricti n since
handbills and nespaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes r
imp rtant medium such as the p sters that ere pr hibited by Padue's
rdinance. (City Padue v. ille )

#,&) ,&
a pubic and malici us imputati n a crime, vice r deect, real
r imaginary r any act, missi n, c nditi n status r circumstance tending t
cause the dish n r, discredit r c ntempt a pers n r t blacken the
mem ry ne h is dead.
glements: A39
a. "he ++(%# a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning an ther
b. */+%&%# the charge making the deamat ry matter, ater it has
been ritten, kn n t s me ne ther than the pers n t h m it has
been ritten.
c. )#%' the pers n deamed
d. gxistence $+%& hen the auth r the imputati n is pr mpted
by illill r spite and speaks n t in resp nse t duty but merely t injure
reputati n.
3rivileged C mmunicati ns every deamat ry act is presumed malici us
except in the ll ing cases:
1.m %" C mmunicati n made by any pers n t an ther in the
per rmance a legal, s cial r m ral duty.
2.m air and true ,, made in g d aith, ith ut c mments,
remarks any juridical, legislative, r ther icial pr ceeding
r any statement, rep rt r speech delivered in
said pr ceedings. Or any ther & per rmed by public icers in the
exercise their uncti ns.
equisites: 3A
1.m "he , # h made the c mmunicati n has a legal, m ral r
s cial duty t make the c mmunicati n, r had an interest t pr tect.
2.m "he c mmunicati n is )) )t an icer r a b ard, r superi r
having an interest in the matter, h has the p er t urnish the
pr tecti ns s ught.
3.m Statements are made in ()!%and c mmunicated / malice.
*!%/+."he la against libel is pr tective reputati n acc rding t
c mmunity standards and n t acc rding t amily r pers nal standards
(Bulletin 3ublishing C rp. v. el)
1A 2010

r liability t arise ith ut ending the press reed m, the test t meet is
WO the statements ere made ith C&*+$+%&C ie. kn ledge that it
as alse r ith reckless disregard hether it as alse r n t (Y times v.
Sullivan).
*)#!"%#(3+%&.lies n the plainti (B rjal v. CA)
espaper may publish nes items relative t udicial, legislative r ther
icial pr ceedings, hich are n t c nidential nature, because the public is
entitled t kn the truth ith respect t such pr ceedings, hich, being
icial and n n c nidential, are pen t public c nsumpti n. But, t enj y
immunity, a publicati n c ntaining der gat ry in rmati n must be n t nly
true, but, als , air, and. 9t must be made in g d aith and ith ut any
c mments r remarks. Omissi ns in the nespaper rep rt, is libel by
negligence.
9 the publisher is unaare, hen under the acts the truth c uld have been
veriied, the publisher is guilty negligence and as liable r libel.
(3 licarpi v. anila "imes)
%/+!*/+%& !!%&%+ #)*/+%&
%(*
"he c nstituti nal guarantee pr hibits a public icial r m rec vering
damages r a deamat ry alseh d relating t his icial c nduct unless he
pr ves that the statement as made ith actual malice. (S"ADAD: Bars
media liability r deamati n a public icial absent pr that the
deamat ry statements ere published ith kn ledge their alsity r in
reckless disregard the truth) (Y "imes v. Sullivan)
"he pr tecti n given t all debate and c mmunicati n inv lving matters
public r general c ncern is extended ith ut regard t hether the pers ns
inv lved are am us r an nym us, but the c mmitment t r bust debate n
public issues cann t be displaced. ( senbl m v. etr media)
"he State's interest in pr tecting public igures r m em ti nal distress is n t
suicient t deny C nstituti nal pr tecti n t speech that c uld n t reas nably
have been interpreted as stating actual acts ab ut the public igure inv lved.
"he rule in "9gS case is extended t 39aA"gSgC"O 3 BP9C 9 gS (e.g.
nescaster, p litical analyst etc). (Hustler agazine v. alell)
0&,%#(#+*+,*/+%& !!%&%+ ,%/%)!$
&"%#($( *#+ %/,"#% &*+$+%&
reed m speech and expressi n is n t abs lute and that reed m needs
n ccasi n t be adjusted t and acc mm dated ith the requirements
equally imp rtant pubic interest. One the undamental pubic interests is the
maintenance the integrity and rderly uncti ning the administrati n

m
justice. reed m expressi n itsel can be secured nly ithin the c ntext
a uncti ning and rderly system dispensing justice. (9n re urad
C rrupti n in the udiciary)
A publicati n relating t judicial acti n in a pending case hich tends t
impede embarrass r bstruct the c urt and c nstitutes a clear and present
danger t the administrati n justice is n t pr tected by the guarantee
press reed m and is punishable as c ntempt.
" c nstitute &#$,, the publicati n must have been made under the
circumstance as uld be calculated t imperil the air and rderly uncti ning
the judicial pr cess, n t rem tely r pr bably, but immediately, and it must
c nstitute a clear and resent danger t the administrati n justice hich
danger must be 'seri us and substantial. (in re urad gnrile v. Salazar)
%/+!%"#)%"%)*+ A publisher deamat ry alseh ds ab ut an
individual h is neither a public icial n r a public igure may n t claim the
e Y rk "imes pr tecti n against liability r deamati n. edia deamati n
private pers ns henever an issue general r public interest is inv lved
uld be unair because private individuals characteristically have less
eective pp rtunities r rebuttal than public icials and public igures. e
Y rk "imes standard is inapplicable t private individuals. (ertz v. Welch)
%$ &%#,,+%)%#%+%,,%#-*% ,*)#&
.An allegati n is c nsidered deamat ry 9 it ascribes t a pers n the
c mmissi n a crime hich tends t dish n r r discredit r put him in
c ntempt, r hich tends t blacken the mem ry ne h is dead.
"he 1*% % !+%/+ are:
a.m the allegati n a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning
an ther;
b.m publicati n the charge
c.m identity the pers n deamed; and
d.m existence malice.
"he 3C pr vides that i the deamat ry statement is made against a public
icial ith respect t the discharge his icial duties and uncti ns and the
truth the allegati n is sh n, the accused ill be entitled t an acquittal.
(aasquez v. CA)
9t is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identiiable alth ugh it is n t
necessary that he be named. 9t is als n t suicient that the ended party
rec gnized himsel as the pers n attacked but it must be sh n that at least a
third pers n c uld identiy him as the bject the libel us publicati n. (B rjal
v. CA)
"he petiti ner's act distributing c pies an article r m "he 9nquirer
1A 2010
stating that grat charges ere iled against udge Sidr cann t be c nsidered
as malici us. (aicari v. CA)
"he c urt held that the statements emb died in the advertisement and the
penletter are pr tected by the c nstituti nal right reed m speech. "he
advertisement stating that a 3C C mmissi ner c mmitted illegal and
unauth rized acts hich c nstitute grat and c rrupti n as held by the c urt
t be a vehicle in rming the public and the st ckh lders the g ings n in
the business rld. (aland ni v. Dril n)

/ &#%' #) #)&#&' s mething ensive t chastity, decency r
delicacy.

9n %#(!/ &#%', the basic guidelines r the tier acts must be:
39SDPa
(1) Whether the average pers n, applying c ntemp rary c mmunity standards
uld ind that the rk, taken as a h le, appeals t the ,*%#%# ,
c mmunity standards standards a speciic c mmunity, hich d
n t really vary r m ther c mmunities.
(2) Whether the rk depicts r describes, in a patently ensive ay, sexual
c nduct ,&%!%&++')!%#) by the applicable state la, and
(3) Whether the rk, taken as a h le +&2 seri us literary, artistic,
p litical r scientiic "+*. (iller v. Cali rnia)
Obscene material is that hich deals ith sex in a manner appealing t
prurient interest. What is seen r perceived by an artist is entitled t respect,
unless there is a sh ing that the pr duct his talent rightully may be
c nsidered bscene. "his ruling h ever, is limited t m ti n pictures. A less
liberal appr ach is given r televisi n since every ne; including children have
easier access t televisi n. ( nzalez v. KalaKatigbak)
" bar the exercise the right, there must be a clear and present danger
that uld arrant State intererence that a danger must n t nly be (1)
clear, but als (2) present, t justiy state acti n. "here must be bjective and
c nvincing, n t subjective r c njectural, pr the existence such &+
#), #)#(, n t relying s lely n auth rity's n appraisal hat
the public elare, peace r saety may require. And the /*)# t sh the
existence grace and imminent danger, and bscenity that uld justiy
adverse acti n lies n the .
What may r r auth rities must d is t secure a arrant and c nvince the
c urt r judge ith jurisdicti n that the materials s ught t be seized are
" bscene," and p se a clear and present danger an evil substantive en ugh
t arrant State intererence and acti n. (3ita v. CA)

"he C urt und that 9ndiana's public indecency statute is justiied despite its
incidental limitati ns n s me expressive activity.
Applying O'Brien:
1.m "he traditi nal p lice p er the State is deined as the auth rity t
pr vide r the public health, saety and m rals. "he statute relected
m ral disappr val pe ple appearing in the nude am ng strangers
in public places.
2.m "he public indecency statute urthers a substantial g vernment
interest in pr tecting rder and m rality
3.m What 9ndiana pr hibited as n t dancing as a c mmunicative
element but simply its being d ne in the nude.
4.m 9ndiana's requirement that the dancers ear at least pasties and a g
string is m dest and the bare minimum necessary t achieve the
State's purp se. (Barnes v. lenn "heatre)
/ &#%'# )%.Stricter rules n bscenity must be ll ed especially
because its pervasive quality and the interest in the pr tecti n children.
"he pr hibiti n against cens rship denies the C mmissi n p er t edit
pr p sed pr grams in advance and t excise material c nsidered
inappr priate. HOWgag, the pr hibiti n has never been c nstrued t deny
the c mmissi n the p er t "% the c ntent CO3Pg"gD br adcasts in
the per rmance its regulat ry p ers. "he c mmissi n has the right t
take n t past pr gram c ntent hen c nsidering a licensee's reneal
applicati n. (CC v. 3aciica undati n)
6#%#(+(% +%#. dealing ith adult entertainment that d es n t ban adult
theaters alt gether is n t invalid being pr perly analyzed as a rm time,
place and manner regulati n. "C ntentneutral time, place and manner
regulati ns are acceptable s l ng as they are designed t serve a substantial
g vernment interest an d n t unreas nably limit alternative avenues
c mmunicati n. (ent n v. 3laytime "heatre)
/ &#%'%# &+."he irst amendment d es n t prevent the sch l
district r m disciplining students in giving ensively led and indecent
speech at a sch l assembly. "he use an ensive rm expressi n may
n t be pr hibited t adults making a p litical p int but it d es n t ll that
the same latitude must be permitted t children in public sch l. (Bethel
Sch l District v. raser)
Sch ls have the auth rity t cens r i it c uld aect the educati n
thers. "his case led that the cens rship in the sch ls as nly acceptable i
it ere r "valid educati nal purp se." Stricter rules sh uld be ll ed r
1A 2010
speech in sch l because the nature the c mmunity that is inv lved and
the relati nship beteen sch l and parents. (Hazel d Sch l District v.
Kuhlmeier)
$/+'#)%%#
## *+ (*+%#. "he g vernment has a right t regulate the
time, manner and place assemblies t ensure the maintenance rder and
public saety.
"he may r p ssessed reas nable discreti n t determine r speciy the
streets public places t be used r the assembly in rder t secure
c nvenient use there by ther and pr vide adequate and pr per p licing t
minimize the risk dis rder and maintain public saety and rder. (avarr v.
aillegas)
"he primacy i human rights, reed m expressi n, peaceul assembly
and petiti n r redress grievances ver pr perty rights sh uld be
sustained. " regard the dem nstrati n against the p lice icers, n t against
the empl yer, as evidence bad aith, a vi lati n the CBA and a cause r
the dismissal r m empl yment the dem nstrating empl yees, stretches
unduly the c mpass the CBA, and is a p tent means inhibiting speech
and there re inlicts a m ral as ell as m rtal und n the c nstituti nal
guarantees reeexpressi n peaceul assembly and petiti n. (3hilippine
Bl ming ills v. 3B)
+#) ##( ,,+%).9n the absence a clear and
present danger a substantive evil t a legitimate public interest, there as
n justiicati n then t deny the exercise the c nstituti nal rights ree
speech and peaceable assembly. 9t is settled la that as t public places,
especially s as t parks and streets, there is reed m access, r is their
use dependent n h is the applicant r the permit, hether an individual r
a gr up. (eyes v. Bagatsing)
ules n Assembly and 3etiti n: 9AHD
1.m #!$ the licensing auth rity the date, the public place here
and the time hen it ill take place (private place nly c nsent
ner required)
2.m ,,+%&%# iled ahead time t enable public icial c ncerned t
appraise hether there may be valid bjecti ns
3.m (9ndispensable c nditi n t reusal r m diicati n that the C3D test
be the standard r the decisi n reached)
4.m 9 public auth rity believes that there is an imminent and grave
danger substantial evil, applicants must be ) n the matter.
5.m &% %# must be transmitted at the earliest pp rtunity.
r
m
9t bears stressing that suspensi n public services, h ever temp rary, ill
inevitably derail services t the public, hich is ne the reas ns hy the
right t strike is denied g vernment empl yees. (Ac sta v. CA)
!%#%%# ! */+%& $/+'. "he la reers t "rally, dem nstrati n,
march, parade, pr cessi n r any ther rm mass r c ncerted acti n held
in a public place." S it d es n t c ver any and all kinds gatherings. 9t
regulates the exercise the right t peaceul assembly and petiti n nly t
the extent needed t av id a clear and present danger the substantive evils
C ngress has the right t prevent. "here is, likeise, n pri r restraint, since
the c ntent the speech is n t relevant t the regulati n.
30%$*$+#&."he highest degree restraint that the military, p lice
and ther peacekeeping auth rities shall bserve during a public assembly r
in the dispersal the same.
Applicati n r a permit can nly be denied n the gr und clear and
present danger t public rder, public saety, public m rals r public health.
(Bayan v. grmita)

r 3

3

7

7 - 3

3

7

m #. /+% $#+*
either a state n r a ederal g vernment can set up a church, pass las
hich aid ne religi n r preer ne religi n ver an ther, n r can it penly r
secretly participate in the aairs any religi us rganizati ns. Creates a all
separati n beteen church and state

When is g vernment aid all able?
$# aid must have: Sgg
(a) &*+ legislative purp se,
(b) must have a primary !!& that neither advances n r inhibits
religi n,
1A 2010
(c) must &0&

(Pem n v. Kurtzman)
%"##(+$# ith recipient instituti n
State sp ns red bible readings and prayers in public sch

sec nd requisites (Sch l District v. Schempp)
ls vi lates ist and
&%+ &+ 3ar chial sch ls, in additi n t their sectarian uncti n,
per rm the task secular educati n. "he C urt cann t agree that all
teaching in a sectarian sch l is religi us, r that the intertining secular
and religi us training is such that secular textb ks urnished t students are,
in act, instrumental in teaching religi n.
m "he la merely makes available t all children the beneits a general
pr gram t lend sch lb ks ree charge, and the inancial beneit is t
parents and children, n t t sch ls. (B ard gducati n v. Allen)
"he entanglement in the 3ennsylvania als arises r m the restricti ns and
surveillance necessary t ensure that teachers play a strictly n nide l gical
r le and the state supervisi n n npublic sch l acc unting pr cedures
required t establish the c st secular as distinguished r m religi us
educati n. 9n additi n, the 3ennsylvania statute has the urther deect
pr viding c ntinuing inancial aid directly t the churchrelated sch ls.
nc nstituti nal due 0& %" ##(+$# /# ("4 D
+%(%#(Pem n v. Kurtzman)
"he part the pr visi n the Higher gducati n acilities Act 1963
pr viding r unlimited use the buildings ( r hatever purp se) ater 20
years as invalidated as am unting t a c ntributi n t a religi us b dy.
("ilt n v. ichards n)
! */+%&
*#) E
&%+%% "he issuance and sale the stamps
c mmem rating the 9nternati nal gucharistic C ngress is aalid.
"he
g vernment sh uld n t be precluded r m pursuing valid bjectives secular in
character even i the incidental result uld be av rable t a religi n r sect.
(Aglipay v. uiz)
"he den image as purchased in c nnecti n ith the celebrati n the
barri iesta h n ring the patr n saint, San aicente errer, and n t r the
purp se av ring any religi n n r interering ith religi us matters r the
religi us belies the barri residents. "he iesta is a s ci religi us aair.
t every g vernmental activity hich inv lves the expenditure public
unds and hich has s me religi us tint is vi lative the c nstituti nal
pr visi ns regarding separati n church and state, reed m rship and
banning the use public m ney r pr perty. (arcez v. gstenz )
"he &F&, hich sat n the main and m st beautiul part the c untry
c urth use, a seat g vernment, sends an unmistakable message that the
c untry supp rted and pr m ted the religi us message.
"he $# display did n t have the pr hibited eect end rsing
religi n, given its "particular physical setting". 9ts c mbined display ith a
Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did n t impermissibly end rse b th
the Christian and eish aiths, but simply rec gnized that b th Christmas and
Hanukkah are part the same interh liday seas n, hich has attained a
secular status in .S. s ciety. (C unty Allegheny v. ACP )
By acc rding parents reed m t select a sch l their ch ice, the statute
ensures that a g vernmentpaid interpreter ill be present in a sectarian
sch l nly as a result the private decisi n individual parents. "he sign
language interpreter ill neither add t n r subtract r m that envir nment,
hence the pr visi n such assistance is n t barred by the gstablishment
Clause. (Z brest v. Catalina)
eligi us expressi n cann t vi late the gstablishment Clause here it
(1) is purely ,%" and
(2) ccurs in a traditi nal r designated ,*/+%& !*$, publicly ann unced
and pen t all n equal terms.
"h se c nditi ns are satisied here, and there re $' # /
,#)# C& !$,%+ 1*(Capit l Square evie B ard v.
3inette)
What sh uld be signiicant is the principal bjective , n t the casual
c nsequence that might ll r m the exercise the p er. "he purp se in
setting up the marker is essentially t rec gnize the distinctive c ntributi n,
the late elix anal t the culture the 3hilippines, rather than t
c mmem rate his unding 9glesia ni Crist . (an sca v. CA)
"here is n c mpelling justiicati n r the g vernment t deprive uslim
rganizati ns, their religi us right t classiy a pr duct as halal, even n the
premise that the health uslim ilipin s can be eectively pr tected by
assigning t OA the exclusive p er t issue halal certiicati ns. (9slamic
Daah v. gxecutive Secretary)
"he amendments the c nstituti n, restatement articles religi n and
aband nment aith r abjurati n alleged by appellant, having t d ith
aith, practice, d ctrine, rm rship, ecclesiastical la, cust m and rule
a church and having reerence t the p er excluding r m the church
th se allegedly un rthy membership, are unquesti nably &&+ % %&+
$ hich are utside the pr vince the civil c urts. gxc mmunicati n
1A 2010
members by a religi us 9nstituti n is c nclusive up n the c urts. ("aruc v.

Dela Cruz)

&&+ % %&+!!% ne that c ncerns d ctrine creed r rm r rship
the church, r the ad pti n and en rcement ithin a religi us ass ciati n
needul las and regulati ns r the g vernment the membership, and the
p er excluding r m such ass ciati ns th se deemed un rthy
membership.
D es the dimissal a 7th Day Adventist inister all ithin the purvie the
PC? What is inv lved here is the relati nship the Church as an empl yer
and the minister as an empl yee. 9t is purely secular, and has n relati n
hats ever ith the practice aith, rship, r the d ctrines the church.
(Austria v. PC)

0&% +*
gmbraces t c ncepts reed m t believe and reed m t act.
a.
)$/+%" c mpulsi n by la the acceptance any creed r
the practice any rm rship
ABSOP "g ggDO "he g vernment cann t inquire int a pers n's religi us
pretenti ns. en may believe hat they cann t pr ve, they may n t be put t
pr ve their religi us d ctrines r belies.
"he abs luteness the reed m t believe carries ith it the c r llary that
the g vernment, hile it may l k int the g d aith a pers n, cann t
inquire int a pers n's religi us pretensi ns. ( S v. Ballard)
b.
)$&# *&/+%! ree exercise the ch sen religi n
O" ABSOP "g "he m ment belie l s ver int acti n, it bec mes subject
t g vernment regulati n
Act must pass the clear and present danger test r the balancing interest
test benev lent neutrality
m 9nv lves c mpulsi n r c erci n n the part the state.
certiicati n ill be released depends up n the secretary public elare.

gven i interests be eighed, there must be a sh ing a clear and present
danger in rder r the state t limit the reed m exercise religi n.
(Cantell v. State C nnecticut)
"he c nstituti nal guaranty the ree exercise and enj yment religi us
pr essi n and rship carries ith it the right t disseminate religi us
in rmati n. Any restraint can nly be justiied n the gr unds that there is
clear and present danger any substantive evil, hich the state has the right
t prevent.
"he state may n t require a license r the disseminati n religi us
literature unless the disseminati n is d ne r a business perati n (American
Bible S ciety v. anila)
gxempti n may be acc rded t the eh vah's Witnesses ith regard t the
bservance the lag cerem ny ut respect r their religi us belies,
h ever "bizarre" th se belies may seem t
thers. (gbranilag v. Div.
Superintendent Sch ls in Cebu)
"he Air rce has dran the line essentially beteen religi us apparel that is
visible and that hich is n t. "he As reas nably and evenhandedly regulate
dress in the interest the militarys perceived need r uni rmity. ( ldman
v. Weinberger)
$% esp ndents have amply supp rted their claim that en rcement
the c mpuls ry rmal educati n requirement ater the eighth grade uld
gravely endanger i n t destr y the ree exercise their religi us belies. Only
the interest the highest rder and th se n t therise served can
verbalance legitimate claims t the ree exercise religi n. (Wisc nsin v.
Y der)
"he ree exercise religi us belie is superi r t c ntract rights, in case

c nlict, the latter must yield t the rmer. eligi us reed m, alth ugh n t
unlimited, is a undamental pers nal right and liberty, and has a preerred
p siti n in the hierarchy values. C ntractual rights must yield t religi us
reed m. (aict rian v. glizalde pe W rkers ni n)
esp ndents assured petiti ners that they have never and ill never restrict
any pers n r pers ns r m entering and rshipping at said chapel. "hey
maintain, h ever, that the intenti n as n t really t per rm an act
religi us rship but t c nduct an antig vernment dem nstrati n at a place
cl se t the very residence and ices the 3resident. "he reas nableness
the restricti n entry is is designed t pr tect the lives the 3resident and
his amily, as ell as g vernment icials transacting business in alacanang.
(erman v. Baranganan)
A certiicati n exclusively r religi us s licitati n is in the rm pri r

restraint r cens rship religi n since the determinati n hether r n t a
ree exercise religi n d es n t pr hibit imp sing a generally applicable

sales and use tax n sales religi us materials by a religi us rganizati n.
(" lentin v. Sec. inance)
1A 2010
S licitati n the Samahan ng Katandaan ng "ikay r Church en vati n

S licitati n r c ntributi n in general, hich may include c ntributi n r
religi us purp ses, may be regulated by general la r the pr tecti n the
public and its citizens r m injury and suppress raudulent s licitati ns.
(Centen v. aillal n 3 mill s)
$% #)) A la that is neutral and general applicability need
n t be justiied by a c mpelling g v interest even i it has the incidental eect
burdening a particular religi us practice.
Pas that burden religi us practice d n t have t be justiied by a c mpelling
g vernmental 9nterest i they are:
(1)m #*+ and
(2)m (#+ applicability. (Church Pukumi Babalu Ayeh v. City
Heilaeah)
Since the ilm series uld n t have been sh n during sch l h urs, n r
as it sp ns red by the sch l, and uld have been pen t the public, there
uld be n realistic danger that the c mmunity uld think that the District
as end rsing religi n r any creed. (Pambs Chapel v. Sch l District)
'%# &+$$#&$#$#% . 9t is bey nd dispute that,
at a minimum, the C nstituti n guarantees that g vernment may n t c erce
any ne t supp rt r participate in religi n r its exercise, r therise act in
a ay hich "establishes a [state] religi n r religi us aith, r tends t d
s ." (Pee v. Weisman)
As here any member a religi us c rp rati n is expelled r m the
membership r esp using d ctrines and teachings c ntrary t that his
church, such an acti n is c nclusive up n civil c urts. (P ng v. Basa)
case: ired r use religi us pey te, c uld n t get unempl yed
c mpensati n. aalid because the religi us clause d es n t relieve an individual
the bligati n t c mply ith a la that incidentally rbids ( r requires) the
per rmance an act that his religi us belie requires r rbids i the la is
n t speciically directed t religi us practice
+%(%*
m la shall be passed hich uld require a pers n t pr ess a religi n
t qualiy in the exercise his civil and p litical rights.
*, t discredit the p licy pr bing int
nes religi us belies by
test aths r limiting public ices t pers ns h pr ess t a particular
religi n

+('%#*/+%& !!%& "he religi us reed m enshrined in the Bill ights

simply means that n public ice may be denied t any pers n, by reas n
his religi us belie, including his n nbelie. When he bec mes an ecclesiastic,
he bec mes the icial minister his church ith distinct duties and
resp nsibilities hich may n t be alays c mpatible ith the p sture
abs lute indierence and impartiality t all religi us belies. 3HgPD (3amil v.
"eler n)
"he right t the ree exercise religi n unquesti nably enc mpasses the
right t preach, pr selyte, and per rm ther similar religi us uncti ns, r, in
ther rds, t be a minister the type cDaniel as und t be. nder the
clergydisqualiicati n pr visi n, cDaniel cann t exercise b th rights
simultane usly because the State has c nditi ned the exercise ne n the
surrender the ther. COS"9" "9OAP (cDaniel v. 3aty)
"he reed m t act t
ne's belie is subject t regulati n here the belie is
translated int external acts that aect the public elare. "here re, the
religi us pr gram is n t bey nd revie by the B ard (9C v. CA)
A creed must meet - &%% 1*+%!' +%(%# under the irst
Amendment: BCDSA"
1.m "here must be /+%! %# ) r s me parallel belie that ccupies a
central place in the believers lie.
2.m "he religi n must inv lve a $+ &) transcending individual
belie, i.e., it cann t be purely subjective.
3.m A )$# /+ %#&%' in belie is necessary, but the c urt must
n t inquire int the truth r reas nableness the belie.
4.m "here must be s me &%%#+ % , alth ugh there is als a
vie that religi us belies held by a single pers n rather than being
part the teachings any kind gr ups r sect are entitled t the
pr tecti n the ree gxercise Clause.
are:
"he religi us reed m d ctrines ne can derive r m
1) 9t is incumbent up n the C urt t determine hether a certain ritual is
religi us r n t;
2)

$
.
#"+# #*+%' rec gnizes the religi us nature the ilipin pe ple
and the elevating inluence religi n in s ciety; at the same time, it
ackn ledges that the g vernment must pursue its secular g als. 9n pursuing
these g als, h ever, the g vernment might ad pt las r acti ns general
1A 2010
applicability, hich inadvertently burden religi us exercise. 9t all s these

breaches in the all separati n t uph ld religi us liberty, hich ater all is
the integral purp se the religi n clauses. (gstrada v. gscrit r)
"he per rmance religi us practices sh uld n t prejudice the c urts and the
public. eligi us reed m d es n t exempt any ne r m c mpliance ith
reas nable requirements the la, including the civil service las. (9n re.
request uslim gmpl yees)

3
3 3
7

3 7

3

%/'(#)/',"% %#
1.m reed m t & #) &#( #C ,+& ! /) may be
impaired up n laul rder the c urt and ithin the limits
prescribed by la.
%/'!/) One can search in vain r any la, rder, r regulati n,
hich even hints at the right the ay r the city anila r the chie
p lice that city, t rce citizens the 3hilippine 9slands(these men
despite their being in a sense lepers s ciety are nevertheless n t chattels
but 3hilippine citizens pr tected by the same c nstituti nal guaranties as any
ther citizens(t change their d micile r m anila t an ther l cality.
(aillavicenci v. Pukban)
"he right t change ab de and travel ithin the 3hilippines, being inv ked by
petiti ner, are n t abs lute rights. 9t can be regulated by a laul rder such
as releasing a petiti ner n bail. (Yap v. CA)
2.m
)$ "+ b th ithin the c untry and utside may be
impaired by administrative auth rities, such as passp rt icers, in
the interest nati nal security r public health als impaired by bail

%("+."he right inv lved in this case at bar is the right t return t
ne's c untry, a distinct right under internati nal la, independent r m,
alth ugh related t the right t travel. "hus, the DH and the 9CC3 treat
the right t reed m m vement and ab de ithin the territ ry a state,
the right t leave the c untry, and the right t enter ne's c untry as separate
and distinct rights.
"he right t return t
ne's c untry is n t c vered by the speciic right t
travel and liberty ab de pr vided r in the 1987 C nstituti n. "here re,

m
the requirements prescribed in the c nstituti n relative t the right t travel

d n t apply. (arc s v. angalapus)
"he right t "ravel may be curtailed by Administrative icers in the interest

nati nal security, public saety r public heath, as may be pr vided by la.
%+ is the security given r the release a pers n in cust dy the la,
urnished by him r a b ndsman, c nditi ned up n his appearance be re any
c urt hen s required by the C urt r the ules C urt.
An accused released n bail may be rearrested ith ut the necessity a
arrant i he attempts t depart r m the 3hilippines ith ut pri r permissi n
the C urt here the case is pending. (Silveri v. CA)
3etiti ner has p sted bail, hich the C urt has declared legally valid
c mplete despite her absence at the time iling. By virtue hich,
h lds hersel amenable at all times t the rders and pr cesses the c
thus she may legally be pr hibited r m leaving the c untry during
pendency the case. (Santiag v. aasquez)
and
she
urt,
the
3etiti ner )%)#"#/ +* %( +" &*#' and the

/*)# #," that because danger t health i n t t her
lie there as necessity t seek medical treatment in reign c untries.
(arc s v. Sandiganbayan)
++' E%(' .3r hibiti n n the use m t rcycles in t llays is n t
an undue deprivati n petiti ners right t travel. " ll ay is n t merely an
rdinary r ad and r public saety and interest, certain restricti ns must be
imp sed. 3etiti ners right t travel is n t taken aay since ith the use
ther rms transp rtati n, they may still travel thr ugh t ll ays r use
alternate r utes i they are t use their m t rcycles. (iras l v. D3WH)

?
3

6

3

3

3
6 - 3 3

%( (#)/',"% %#
m "he right t in rmati n and right t access rec rds and d cuments is a
rm p litical right
1A 2010
"he inc rp rati n in the C nstituti n a guarantee access t

public c ncern is rec gniti n the essentiality the ree l
in rmati n in a dem cracy. 9n the instant case, hile reusing t
deny the claims eligibility, the resp ndent has ailed t cite any
the Civil Service Pa hich uld limit the petiti ner's right t kn
and h are n t, civil service eligibles. (Pegaspi v. CSC)
in rmati n
ideas and
c nirm r
pr visi n in
h are,
3etiti ner requested r in rmati n n the eligibility Sanitary standard

inspect rs: (Pegazpi v. CSC)3S
1.m 9s such in rmati n a matter ,*/+%&&#&#?
(3 "embrace a br ad spectrum subjects hich the public
may have a right t kn , either because they directly aect their lives r
simply because they ar use the interest an rdinary citizen)
2.m D es petiti ner have #)%#(?
3.m 9 denied, hat $)' d es he have? andamus
"he right t in rmati n g es handinhand ith the c nstituti nal p licies
ull public discl sure and h nesty in the public service. 9t is meant t enhance
the idening r le the citizenry in the g vernmental decisi nmaking as ell
as in checking abuse in the g vernment. Albeit, the right t in rmati n is n t
abs lute, it is limited t matters public c ncern and interest, and is urther
subject t limitati ns as may be imp sed by la.
As t urnishing lists h ever, r abstracts l ans, there is O clear
bligati n hich may be c mpelled by mandamus. "he C nstituti n d es n t
acc rd them the right t c mpel cust dians icial rec rds t prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire t acquire in rmati n n
matters public c ncern. (aalm nte v. Belm nte)
m
ight may be regulated thr ugh standards that have been devel ped r
the regulati n speech and press and assembly and petiti n and
ass ciati n are applicable t the right access t in rmati n:
1.m Substantive regulati ns t kn hat is s ught is public c ncern
2.m Statut ry regulati ns la may exempt d cuments aecting public
interest
3.m 3r cedural regulati ns icers may regulate the manner by hich
the pers n may l k thr ugh the in rmati n
a.m "#$##& right attaches nce the c mmittee
makes its , hich is a
) n the part the g vernment.
b.m % E &*#% 9n
n interg vernment
exchanges pri r t the c nclusi n treaties and executive
agreements ith regard t dipl matic neg tiati ns may be

m
subject t reas nable saeguards r the sake nati nal

interest. ight attaches OPY up n inal appr val the
3resident.
? the C de C nduct and gthical Standards r 3ublic Oicials and
gmpl yees pr vides that, in the per rmance their duties, all public icials
and empl yees are bliged t resp nd t letters sent by the public ithin
iteen (15) rking days r m receipt there and t ensure the accessibility
all public d cuments r inspecti n by the public ithin reas nable rking
h urs, subject t the reas nable claims c nidentiality. ( nzalez v.
arvasa)
While access t
icial rec rds may n t be pr hibited, % &%#+' $' /
(*+) "he regulati n may c me either r m statut ry la and r m the
inherent p er an icer t c ntr l his ice and the rec rds under his
cust dy and t exercise s me discreti n as t the manner in hich pers ns
desiring t inspect, examine, r c py the rec rd may exercise their rights. "he
requirement
payment r the repr ducti n is reas nable under the
circumstances c nsidering that the rdinance is quite v lumin us c nsisting
m re than a hundred pages. (Berdin v. ascarinas)
."he g vernment, hether carrying ut its s vereign attributes r
running s me business, discharges the same uncti ns service t the
pe ple. 9t is the clear intent the c nstituti nal C mmissi n t include
g vernment ned and c ntr lled c rp rati ns in the sc pe the right t
in rmati n. (aalm nte v. Belm nte)
. 9t is incumbent up n the 3C and its icers, as ell as ther
g vernment representatives, t discl se suicient public in rmati n n any
pr p sed settlement they have decided t take up ith the stensible ners
and h lders illg tten ealth. Such in rmati n, th ugh, must pertain t
deinite pr p siti ns the g vernment. (Chavez v. 3C)
3 ."here is n d ubt that the "CB is public is character; it is an ice
created t serve public interest. 9t being the case, resp ndents can lay n
valid claim t privacy. "he right t privacy bel ngs t the individual acting in
his private capacity and n t t a g vernmental agency r icers tasked ith,
and acting in, the discharge public duties. Decisi ns (in this case, the
"CB) made in an icial capacity are public and n t private matters.
(Aquin Sarmient v. rat )
3.Applying the O Brien test, the C urt inds that said la is a valid
exercise the p er the State t regulate media c mmunicati n r
in rmati n r the purp se ensuring equal pp rtunity time and space
r p litical campaigns. (Osmena v. COgPgC)
1A 2010
"he COgPgC vi lated the right t in rmati n and ree access t d cuments
clause hen it reused t discl se the n minees the partylist gr ups.
While the v te cast in a partylist electi n is a v te r a party, such a v te, in
the end, uld be a v te r its n minees. 3e ple have the right t elect their
representatives n the basis an in rmed judgment.
"here is n thing that pr hibits the C melec r m discl sing r even
publishing the names the partylist n minees thr ugh mediums ther than
the certiied list (Bantay v. COgPgC)
##+ 3#*+ . "he requirement c nidentiality the c ntents the
manual c ntaining the details and pr cedure administering lethal injecti n
ith respect t the c nvict is unduly suppressive r the c ntents the same
is a matter public c ncern. (gchagaray v. Sec. ustice)
"#$# #& . vernment agencies, ith ut need demand
r m any ne, must bring int public vie all the steps and neg tiati ns
leading t the c nsummati n the transacti n and the c ntents the
perected c ntract. "he g vernment agency, h ever, need n t discl se
intraagency r interagency rec mmendati ns r c mmunicati ns during the
expl rat ry stage. (Chavez v. HA) similar t Chavez v. 3C
Once the c mmittee makes its , there arises a
) n the part the g vernment. r m this m ment, the
publics right t in rmati n attaches, and any citizen can access all the n n
pr prietary in rmati n leading t such deinite pr p siti n.
A c nsummated c ntract is n t a requirement r the exercise the right t
in rmati n. Otherise, the pe ple can never exercise the right i n c ntract
is c nsummated, and i ne is c nsummated, it may be t
late r the public
t exp se its deects. equiring a c nsummated c ntract ill keep the public
in the dark until the c ntract bec mes a ait acc mpli.
"he c nstituti nal right t in rmati n includes icial in rmati n n "
be re a inal c ntract. "he in rmati n, h ever,
by the g vernment and sh uld n t c ver

.
(Chavez v. 3gA)
Zam ra, in his icial capacity as gxecutive Secretary, has a c nstituti nal
and statut ry duty t anser petiti ners letter dealing ith matters hich are
unquesti nably public c ncern that is, app intments made t public
ices and the utilizati n public pr perty. With regard t petiti ners
request r c pies the app intment papers certain icials, resp ndent
Zam ra is bliged t all the inspecti n and c pying the same subject t
6
m
the reas nable limitati ns required r the rderly c nduct icial business.
( nzalez v. arvasa)
&(#%=)+%$%%# #%(%#!$%#S"SCD
(a) %#+ &*%' matters including state secrets
n military,
dipl matic and
ther nati nal security and in rmati n
n inter
g vernment exchanges pri r t c nclusi n executive agreements r
treaties,
(b) ) & and banking transacti ns,
(c) %$%#+$
r classiied la en rcement matters,
(d) ther c nidential matters ()%,+$%& aairs)
equirements the %)#%+$$*#%&%# %"%+(QO3C
1.m "he c mmunicati n must relate t a '1*%# #%+ and n n
delegable p er the 3resident the p er t enter int an
executive agreement ith ther c untries.
2.m "he c mmunicati ns are "received" by a cl se advis r
the
3resident under the ,%#+,0%$%'
3.m "here is & &$,++%#( #) that uld
justiy the limitati n the privilege and the unavailability the
in rmati n elsehere by an appr priate investigating auth rity.
"he right C ngress t
btain in rmati n in aid legislati n cann t be
equated ith the pe ple's right t public in rmati n. "he rmer cann t claim
that every legislative inquiry is an exercise the pe ples right t in rmati n.
%(#1*%' C ngress right t pass las necessarily implies the right t
btain in rmati n up n any matter hich may bec me the subject a la.
nder the present circumstances, the alleged an malies in the 3hilc msat,
3HC and 3O" ranging in milli ns pes s, and the c nspirat rial participati n
3C and its icials are c mpelling reas ns r the Senate t exact vital
in rmati n r m the direct rs and icers 3hilc msat H ldings C rp rati n,
as ell as r m Chairman Sabi and his C mmissi ners t aid it in crating the
necessary legislati n t prevent c rrupti n and rmulate remedial measures
and p licy determinati n regarding 3Cs eicacy. (Sabi v. rd n)
.*+)/, *$,** #,!* *$$%+'
&$,+ ,*/+%& ,#)# t c mply ith pertinent pr visi ns la
regarding pr curement g vernment inrastructure pr jects %* #'
!&*+ / %
r pri r determinati n very particular vi lati ns c mmitted
by speciic g vernment icials the executive branch. (Suplic v. gDA)
1A 2010
Decisi ns and pini ns a c urt are c urse matters public c ncern r

interest. ustice thus requires that all sh uld have ree access t the pini n
judges and justices. But unlike c urt
rders and decisi ns, h ever,
,+)%#( #) )&*$# !%+)/' ,% & #)# /
$ !,*/+%&&#&#%# 9n determining hich part a case
may be accessed, the purp se r hich the parties iled them is c nsidered.
ranting unrestricted public access and publicity t pers nal in rmati n may
c nstitute an unarranted invasi n privacy. (Hilad v. eyes)
justiy the exercise the pe ple's right t be c nsulted n relevant matters

relating t the peace agenda.
%,+$%&(%%# "he ature dipl macy requires the

centralizati n auth rity and expediti n decisi n, hich are inherent in
executive acti n. Delegates r m ther c untries tell y u their c ncerns in
c nidence, and hile the inal text the 3g3A may n t be perpetually
c nidential, the ers exchanged by the parties during the neg tiati ns
c ntinue t be privileged even ater the 3g3A is published. 9t is reas nable t
assume that the apanese delegates expect that hist ric c nidentiality
uld g vern the same. (Akbayan v. Aquin )
* , epublic Act . 7160 r the P cal vernment C de 1991 requires all

nati nal ices t c nduct c nsultati ns be re any pr ject r pr gram critical
t the envir nment and human ec l gy including th se that may call r the
evicti n a particular gr up pe ple residing in such l cality, is
implemented therein. "he OAAD is ne peculiar pr gram that unequiv cally
and unilaterally vests nership a vast territ ry t the Bangsam r pe ple,
hich c uld pervasively and drastically result t the diasp ra r displacement
a great number inhabitants r m their t tal envir nment.
3 ?
3 333? 3 3 ?
3
"he pe ple's right t in rmati n n matters public c ncern under Sec. 7,
Article 999 the C nstituti n is in

ith the state p licy
ull public discl sure all its transacti ns inv lving public interest under Sec.
28, Article 99 the C nstituti n. "he right t in rmati n guarantees the right
the pe ple t demand in rmati n, hile Secti n 28 rec gnizes the duty
iciald m t give in rmati n even i n b dy demands. "he c mplete and
eective exercise the right t in rmati n necessitates that its
c mplementary pr visi n n public discl sure derive the same selexecut ry
nature, subject nly t reas nable saeguards r limitati ns as may be
pr vided by la.
*, epublic Act . 8371 r the 9ndigen us 3e ples ights Act 1997
pr vides r clearcut pr cedure r the rec gniti n and delineati n
ancestral d main, hich entails, am ng ther things, the bservance the
ree and pri r in rmed c nsent the 9ndigen us Cultural
C mmunities/9ndigen us 3e ples. +

,-

"he c ntents the OAAD is a matter param unt public c ncern inv lving
public interest in the highest rder. 9n declaring that the right t in rmati n
c ntemplates steps and neg tiati ns leading t the c nsummati n the
c ntract, jurisprudence inds n distincti n as t the execut ry nature r
c mmercial character the agreement.
An essential element these tin reed ms is t keep a c ntinuing dial gue
r pr cess c mmunicati n beteen the g vernment and the pe ple.
C r llary t these tin rights is the design r eedback mechanisms. "he right
t public c nsultati n as envisi ned t be a species these public rights.
At least three pertinent las animate these c nstituti nal imperatives and

m
, g.O. . 3 itsel is replete ith mechanics r c ntinuing c nsultati ns n

b th nati nal and l cal levels and r a principal rum r c nsensusbuilding.
9n act, it is the duty the 3residential Adviser n the 3eace 3r cess t
c nduct regular dial gues t seek relevant in rmati n, c mments, advice,
and rec mmendati ns r m peace partners and c ncerned sect rs s ciety.
"he inv cati n the d ctrine executive privilege as a deense t the

general right t in rmati n r the speciic right t c nsultati n is untenable.
"he vari us explicit legal pr visi ns ly in the ace executive secrecy. 9n any
event, resp ndents eectively aived such deense ater it unc nditi nally
discl sed the icial c pies the inal drat the OAAD, r judicial
c mpliance and public scrutiny.
@

3
3

m vernment empl yees have the right t rm uni ns but this d es n t
include the right t strike.

vernment empl yees are denied the same eap ns/m des petiti ning
and neg tiati n that their private sect r c unterparts have r the betterment
the terms and c nditi ns their empl yment. (SSS gmpl yees v. CA)
1A 2010
Mm this C urt had already deinitively ruled that empl yees in the public
(civil) service, unlike th se in the private sect r, d n t have the right
t strike, alth ugh guaranteed the right t sel rganizati n, t petiti n
C ngress r the betterment empl yment terms and c nditi ns and
t
neg tiate ith appr priate g vernment agencies r the
impr vement such rking c nditi ns as are n t ixed by la
(anila 3ublic Sch l "eachers Ass c. v. Pagui r.)
m
m
ltimate right s vereign p er t appr priate, n t nly public, but als
private pr perty ithin the territ rial s vereignty, r public purp ses.
9nherently p ssessed by the State thr ugh the ati nal g vernment
(+(% +*) and may be delegated t :
a)m l cal g vernment units, pursuant t
an
rdinance
enacted by respective legislative b dies.
b)m 3ublic utilities, as may be delegated by la.

anagerial empl yees are n t all ed t j in, assist, r rm uni ns.
"he Pab r C de may pr hibit managerial empl yees r m
j ining/assisting/ rming any lab r rganizati ns:
Mm Sec. 8 says "he right the pe plet rm uni ns, ass ciati ns, r
s cieties r purp ses shall n t be abridged
Mm Pab r c de is la, uni n participati n managerial empl yees is
c ntrary t Pa
i these managerial empl yees uld bel ng t
r be ailiated ith a ni n,
the latter might n t be assured their l yalty t the ni n in vie evident
c nlict interest. "he ni n can als bec me c mpanyd minated ith the
presence managerial empl yees in the ni n membership. ( 3SC v.
Paguesma)
Alth ugh the 9 3 1953 airmed the right supervis rs,
r
#.+%#3#( t rm their n rganizati ns.
"he right t j in ass ciati ns includes %( >%#

ne can be c mpelled t j in an ass ciati n ith ut his c nsent.
"he bylas r charters c rp rati n cann t bind r c mpel a pers n, n t
party t the creati n the charter/bylas, t bec me a member the
c rp rati n/ass ciati n because he has n t given his c nsent.
(Sta. Clara H me ners Ass ciati n v. ast n)
But a ))! +, hich pr vides that the buyer must aut matically j in an
ass ciati n, is binding because his participati n in the c ntract implies his
c nsent. He c uld have ch sen t n t purchase the pr perty.
nder the " rrens system registrati n, claims and liens hatever
character except th se menti ned by la existing against the land binds the
h lder the title and the h le rld.
3ADCO c uld have av ided
membership by n t buying the land. (3ADCO vs. Ortigas Center Ass ciati n)
G B

- 3

9m 0,,%%#%##+
$%##$%#

m
1*% % !"+%)0&% !,!$%##)$%#

a.m "he pr perty taken must be private pr perty;
b.m "here must be genuine necessity t
take the private
pr perty;
c.m "he taking must be r public use;
d.m "here must be payment just c mpensati n; and
e.m "he taking must c mply ith due pr cess la.

1*% % !0&% $%##)$%#
1.m aalid and deinite er previ usly made t the ner but as n t
accepted
2.m Ordinance enacted auth rizing such exercise
3.m 3 er enacted r public use, elare, purp se r r the beneit
the p r and landless
4.m 3ayment just c mpensati n
As underst d r m the c mm n and usual meaning the c njuncti n and,
the pr visi ns 3D 1517 apply nly t areas declared t be l cated ithin
b th an Area r 3ri rity Devel pment (A3D) and an rban Pand e rm Z ne
( PZ). (S landa v. CA)
9t is n ted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney,
primarily because the small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big
land ners, h can a rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things
value. (Sant s v. Pand Bank)
Despite the existence this legislative grant in av r l cal g vernments, it
is still the duty the c urts t determine hether the p er eminent
d main is being exercised in acc rdance ith the delegating la.
"he
requisites t be c nsidered by the c urts are:
1.m An
rdinance is enacted by the l cal legislative c uncil
auth rizing the l cal chie executive, in behal the l cal
g vernment unit, t exercise the p er eminent d main r
pursue expr priati n pr ceedings
ver a particular private
pr perty. x x x
1A 2010
9n the present case, the City andaluy ng seeks t exercise the p er
eminent d main ver petiti ners' pr perty by means a res luti n, in
c ntraventi n the irst requisite. Secti n 19 the C de requires an
rdinance, n t a res luti n, r the exercise the p er eminent d main.
"he C urt, in
3
& .
,
distinguished beteen an rdinance and a res luti n. A municipal rdinance
is dierent r m a res luti n. An rdinance is a la, but a res luti n is merely
a declarati n the sentiment r pini n a lamaking b dy n a speciic
matter. An rdinance p ssesses a general and permanent character, but a
res luti n is temp rary in nature. Additi nally, the t are enacted dierently
a third reading is necessary r an rdinance, but n t r a res luti n,
unless decided therise by a maj rity all the Sanggunian members.
(Heirs Albert Suguitan v. City andaluy ng)
%#+%'!-*)($#."he judgment giving HA the right t expr priate the

pr perties menti ned became inal and execut ry. 9t is arbitrary and
caprici us r a g vernment agency t initiate expr priati n pr ceedings, seize
a pers ns pr perty, all the judgment the c urt t bec me inal and
execut ry and then reuse t pay n the gr und that there are n
appr priati ns r the pr perty earlier taken and pr itably used. (HA v.
Heirs 9sidr uivel nd )
9n the case 3P-*, the C urt held that alth ugh an easement
a right ay transmits n rights except the easement itsel, and resp ndent
retains ull nership the pr perty, the acquisiti n such easement is,
nevertheless, n t . C nsidering the nature and the eect the
installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use the land r an indeinite
peri d uld deprive resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty. r this
reas n, the latter is entitled t payment a just c mpensati n, hich must
be neither m re n r less than the m netary equivalent the land.
While Secti n 3(a) .A. .6395, as amended, and the implementing rule
.A. . 8974 indeed state that nly 10% the market value the
pr perty is due t the ner the pr perty subject t an easement right
ay, said rule is n t binding n the C urt. Wellsettled is the rule that the
determinati n "just c mpensati n" in eminent d main cases is a judicial
uncti n. Any valuati n r just c mpensati n laid d n in the statutes may
serve nly as guiding principle r ne the act rs in determining just
c mpensati n but it may n t substitute the c urt's n judgment as t hat
am unt sh uld be aarded and h t arrive at such am unt. (3C v.
3ure ds)
m
gxpr priati n is n t limited t the acquisiti n real pr perty ith a

c rresp nding transer title r p ssessi n. "he right ay easement
resulting in a restricti n r limitati n n pr perty rights ver the land
traversed by transmissi n lines als alls ithin the ambit the term
"expr priati n."
-* &$,# %# % )!%#) !*++ #) !% 1*%"+# !
,,' 2# !$ % # /' 0,,% $ * %
# 2C (%# /* #C + "he rd "just" is used t
intensiy the meaning the rd "c mpensati n" and t c nvey thereby the
idea that the equivalent t be rendered r the pr perty t be taken shall be
real, substantial, ull and ample. "he valuati n a pr perty in the tax
declarati n cann t be an abs lute substitute t just c mpensati n. (3C v.
Capin)

/9m #)20,,%%#
*/ %*%#."he real party in interest in expr priati n cases is the epublic
the 3hilippines. gxpr priati n suits are br ught in behal and r the
beneit the epublic the 3hilippines. it ll s that the epublic the
3hilippines is entitled t be substituted in the expr priati n pr ceedings as
partyplainti in lieu 9SA, the statut ry term 9SA having expired. 3ut a
little dierently, the expirati n 9SA's statut ry term did n t by itsel require
r justiy the dismissal the eminent d main pr ceedings. (9r n and Steel
Auth rity v. CA)
"hresh ld requisites r laul taking private pr perty r public use need
t be examined here: ne is the necessity r the taking; an ther is the legal
auth rity t eect the taking.A reas nable relati nship beteen that p er
and the en rcement and administrati n electi n las by C melec must be
sh n; it is n t casually t be assumed. (3hilippine 3ress 9nstitute v.
COgPgC)

(*+%#!%"%+(% #2%#( 9n truth, radi and televisi n
br adcasting c mpanies, hich are given ranchises, d n t n the airaves
and requencies thr ugh hich they transmit br adcast signals and images.
"hey are merely given the temp rary privilege using them. Since a
ranchise is a mere privilege, the exercise the privilege may reas nably be
burdened ith the per rmance by the grantee s me rm public service.
("elebap v. COgPgC)

$,+%#&%,&)*+)*,& % $#)'#)$#%#
$* /+ 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings are t
be res rted t
nly ater the ther m des acquisiti n have been exhausted.
C mpliance ith these c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly
1A 2010
saeguards tentimes helpless ners private pr perty against vi lati n

due pr cess hen their pr perty is rcibly taken r m them r public use.
(gstate Heirs the Pate gxustice BP v. City anila)
3rivate lands rank last in the rder pri rity r purp ses s cialized
h using. 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings may be res rted t
nly
ater the ther m des acquisiti n are exhausted. C mpliance ith these
c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly saeguards tentimes
helpless ners private pr perty against hat may be a tyrannical vi lati n
due pr cess hen their pr perty is rcibly taken r m them allegedly r
public use. (Pagca v. Pabra)

&9m
%( ! #/!0,,%%#
A cl se scrutiny the rec rds reveals that the Sangguniang Bayan did n t
establish r maintain any public market n the subject l t. "he res luti n
merely menti ned the plan t acquire the l t r expansi n the public
market adjacent theret . #%+0,,%%#,&)%#( %# %*)
%#&*+#)#&##/),%")!% %("+#).
(reater Balanga v. unicipality Balanga)
9t must be stressed that the agreement t transer the pr perty as made in
1974. re than tenty years later, n actual transer had yet been made.
nless and until the transer is c nsummated, r expr priati n pr ceedings
instituted by the g vernment, private resp ndent c ntinues t retain
nership the land subject this case. (aelarma v. CA)
)9m +$# !2%#(
equisites r "aking:
1.m "he expr priat r must enter up n the private pr perty
2.m "he entrance must n t be r a m mentary peri ds, that is, the
entrance must be permanent
3.m "he entry must be under the arrant r c l r legal auth rity
4.m "he pr perty must be dev ted r public use
5.m
tilizati n the pr perty must be in such a ay as t
ust the ner
and deprive him all beneicial enj yment the pr perty.
(epublic v. ada. De Castelvi)
Where there is n taking pr perty r purp ses eminent d main, n r
c ndemnati n pr ceedings instituted, the basis r determinati n just
c mpensati n is the time hen the trial c urt made its ) expr priati n.
(arcia v. CA)
*%++ !*, 3 lice 3 er d es n t include the p er t take
r
m
pr perty
a e cases here there is a necessity t
c niscate private pr perty in rder t destr y it r the purp se pr tecting
peace and rder and t pr m te the general elare. By c niscating a part
a private cemetery t be given t paupers, the city is n t exercising p lice
p er but rather, the taking private pr perty, hich sh uld be
c mpensated. (arcia v. CA)
"he air is a public highay, as C ngress has declared. But this general
principle d es n t apply here. 9 the land ner is t have ull enj yment the
land, he must have exclusive c ntr l the immediate reaches the
envel ping atm sphere. "h ugh nly an $#!!+%(is inv lved, that
easement, i

, uld be a deinite
exercise c mplete d mini n and c ntr l ver the surace the land. "he
act that the planes never t uched the surace uld be irrelevant. "he
ner's right t p ssess and expl it the land that is t say, his beneicial
nership it uld be destr yed. 9t is the Oners P ss, O" the takers
gain, hich is imp rtant.
C mpensable taking d es n t need t inv lve all the pr perty 9nterests,
hich rm part the right t
nership. When ne r m re the pr perty
rights are appr priated and applied t a public purp se, there is taking even i
the bare title t the pr perty still remains ith the private ner. ( S v.
Causby)
3r perty rights essentially include the ull use the pr perty. An rdinance
hich permanently restricts the use pr perty, that it cann t be used r any
reas nable purp se, is rec gnized as a taking pr perty. 9 the municipality
ants t assure that n structure uld bstruct the vie the plaza, they
sh uld have given just c mpensati n r the land. (3e ple v. ajard )
*/+%&%+%% While the epublic may n t c mpel 3PD" t enter int a
c ntract, the epublic may, in the exercise eminent d main, require 3PD"
t permit interc nnecti n the g vernment ph ne system / 3PD", subject
t just c mpensati n t be determined by the c urt.
"here is n reas n hy the State may n t require a public utility t render
services in the general interest, pr vided just c mpensati n is paid there r.
ltimately, the beneiciary the interc nnecting service uld be the users
b th teleph ne systems, s that the c ndemnati n uld be r public use.
(ep. v. 3PD")
p n the iling the c mplaint in gminent D main pr ceedings, r at any
time thereater, ater due n tice t deendant, the petiti ner has the right t
take r enter up n the p ssessi n the real pr perty inv lved i he dep sits
1A 2010
an am unt equivalent t the assessed value the pr perty ith the 3B r
purp ses taxati n. (3C v. cs n)
"here is n taking since the landmark la had n t transerred c ntr l ver
the pr perty t the city, but nly the appellant's expl itati n it. A
state statute that substantially urthers imp rtant public p licies and
the quality lie by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic eatures
a city may s rustrate distinct 9agS"g"BACKgD 9"ggS"S.
"here is a D9ggCg beteen gASOABPg use pr perty and OS"
Bgg9C9AP use pr perty = taking ccurs i ner can still reas nably
use the pr perty, even i he may bear s me l sses due t States
restricti n/las.
HOWgag, %&%##+,,'$'&# %*H2%#(H%!:
a.m public purp se
b.m Has an unduly harsh impact up n the ner's use the
pr perty
c.m Has same eect as the c mplete destructi n rights land
ners(3enn Central "ransp rt v. YC)

) & . Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many
the characteristics m re traditi nal rms pr perty. re ver, this C urt
has und ther kinds intangible interests t be pr perty r purp ses the
Clause. "he c urt als held that s l ng as the taking has a c nceivable public
character, the means by hich it ill be attained is r c ngress t determine.
9n deciding ,%&*+("#$#+&%# (sh rt
acquisiti n) !!&)2%#(, this C urt cuses n:
1)m "he character the g vernmental acti n
2)m "he ec n mic impact
3)m Whether the acti n intereres ith reas nable investmentbacked
expectati ns
(uckelshaus v. nsant )
An $#!%(!' transmits n rights except the easement
itsel; resp ndent retains ull nership the pr perty. "he acquisiti n
such easement is, nevertheless, . C nsidering the nature and the
eect the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use the land r
an uld deprive resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty.
"he latter is entitled t just c mpensati n, hich must be neither m re n r
less than the lands m netary equivalent.
ust c mpensati n is deined as the ull and air equivalent the pr perty
taken r m its ner by the expr priat r. 9n eminent d main r expr priati n

m
pr ceedings, the just c mpensati n is generally the market value.

"he nature and character the land at the time its taking is the principal
criteri n r determining h much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the
land ner. (3C v. anubay)
>* &$,# %# is c nsidered t be the sum equivalent t the market
value the pr perty, br adly described t be the pr pertys !%$2
"+*, r:
"he price ixed by the seller in pen market in the usual and rdinary c urse
legal acti n and c mpetiti n O the air value the pr perty as beteen
ne h receives, and ne h desires t sell it, ixed at the time the its
actual taking by the g vernment.
9n +3 right ay easement resulting in %&%#
+%$%%# n pr perty rights als alls ithin the ambit expr priati n as
there as l ud buzzing and expl ding s unds caused by the transmissi n
lines, it aects the rights the ner t use r sell such land. (3C v. San
3edr )
9n the determinati n [air market] value, the c urt is n t limited t the
assessed value the pr perty r t the schedule market values determined
by the pr vincial r city appraisal c mmittee; these values c nsist but ne
act r in the judicial valuati n the pr perty. "he
the
land at the time its taking is the principal criteri n r determining h
much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the land ner. All the acts as t
the
and , as ell as its
, sh uld be c nsidered.
9 the easement is %##)) t perpetually r indeinitely deprive the ner
his pr prietary rights by imp sing c nditi ns that aect the rdinary
$
the pr perty r thr ugh
that are inc nsistent ith the exercise the attributes
nership, r hen the intr ducti n structures r bjects hich, by their
nature,
$

and pr perty und n the land is necessary, then the ner sh uld be
c mpensated r the m netary equivalent the land. (3C v. "iangc )
"he taking private lands under the (%#!$,($ partakes
the nature an expr priati n pr ceeding.
Since just c mpensati n embraces n t nly the c rrect determinati n the
am unt t be paid t the ners the land, but als its payment ithin a
reas nable time r m the taking the land, e think that the appellate c urt
c rrectly imp sed an %# in the nature damages r the delay. (PB3 v.
1A 2010
9mperial)
C nsidering the nature and the eect the installati n p er lines, the
limitati ns n the use the land r an indeinite peri d uld deprive
resp ndent n rmal use the pr perty. "he C urt has c nsistently held that
the determinati n just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n. statute,
decree, r executive rder can mandate that its n determinati n shall
prevail ver the c urts indings. (3C v. B ngb ng)
3gAs entry int the pr perty ith the permissi n SADC, its previ us
ner, as n t r the purp se expr priating the pr perty. SADC all ed
3gA t enter the land n c nditi n that it sh uld pay a m nthly rental 310K.
Als , it must be n ted that ater its entry, 3gA requested SADC t d nate r
sell the land t the g vernment. 9ndeed, there as n intenti n n the part
3gA t expr priate subject pr perty. Why did it ask permissi n? 9t c uld have
simply exercised its p er eminent d main. ("an v. epublic)
"he undergr und tunnels imp se limitati ns n resp ndents use the
pr perty r an indeinite peri d and deprive them its rdinary use. Based
up n the reg ing, resp ndents are clearly entitled t the payment just
c mpensati n. tithstanding the act that petiti ner nly ccupies the sub
terrain p rti n, it is liable t pay n t merely an easement ee but rather the
ull c mpensati n r land. "he nature the easement practically deprives the
ners its n rmal beneicial use. (3C v. 9brahim)
"he "C misapplied the ruling in by substituting such
inlati n act r and r adjustment act r r the +(++' $#)) %#
in the price t be paid as just c mpensati n in expr priati n cases. here
in the said decisi n may it be inerred that damages r such delay in the
payment just c mpensati n, ther than the legal interest pr vided by la,
may be granted in additi n r c nsidered in c mputing the am unt just
c mpensati n such as the inlati n act r applied by the trial c urt. (3OC v.
aglasang)
9m */+%& any use that is
beneit the public.
utility, advantage
r pr ductivity r the
3ublic se requirement is a lexible, c mprehensive and ev lving c ncept.

Whatever may be beneicially empl yed r the general elare satisies this
requirement. "he c nstructi n l c st h using is rec gnized as a public
purp se. 9t is made pursuant t the Sates mandate t pr m te s cial justice
in all phases nati nal devel pment.
purp se the taking is public, meaning, any act that may be beneicially
empl yed r the general elare, then the p er eminent d main c mes
int play.(Sumul ng v. uerrer )
"he City anila, thr ugh its legislative branch, has the express p er t
acquire private lands and subdivide these lands int h me l ts r sale t b na
ide tenants r ccupants, and t lab rers and l salaried empl yees the
city. "hat nly a e c uld actually beneit r m the expr priati n the
pr perty d es n t diminish its public use character. 9t is simply n t p ssible t
pr vide all at nce land and shelter r all h need them (
). 3ublic use n includes the br ader n ti n indirect public beneit
r advantage, including in particular, urban land re rm and h using.(3hil.
C lumbian Ass c. v. H n. 3anis)
"he idea that "public use" is strictly limited t clear cases "use by the
public" has l ng been discarded. "hat nly a e uld actually beneit r m
the expr priati n pr perty d es n t necessarily diminish the essence and
character public use. As l ng as the public has right use, hether
exercised by ne r many members, a "public advantage" r "public beneit"
accrues, suicient t c nstitute a public use. 9t may be limited t the
inhabitants a small r restricted l cality, but must be in c mm n, and n t
r a particular individual(s) al ne. (an sca v. CA)
"he establishment a pil t devel pment center uld inure t the direct
beneit and advantage the pe ple the 3r vince Camarines Sur. Once
perati nal, the center uld make available t the c mmunity invaluable
in rmati n and techn l gy n agriculture, ishery and the c ttage industry.
"he h using pr ject als satisies the public purp se requirement the
C nstituti n. (3r vince Cam Sur v. CA)
9t is ell settled that expr priati n private land r urban devel pment
and slum clearance is r a public purp se even i the devel ped area is
s ld t private h me ners, c mmercial irms, entertainment, and
service c mpanies. (eyes v. HA)
Ater scrutinizing the rec rds, the C urt und that the basis the rdinance
as t beneit the elendres C mp und H me ners Ass ciati n, a private,
n npr it rganizati n, # the residents Cani gan in general. 9t can be
seen that the ass ciati n anted a private playgr und and recreati nal acility
and asikips pr perty as the cl sest l t available. "hus, the taking as #
a public character. re ver, there as already an alternative acility r
sp rts and recreati n in the area, the ain rest 3ark. (asikip v. 3asig)
&%+%=)* %#(.alls ithin the c nine public use. As l ng as the

m
1A 2010
3%#%#( d es n t entail a simple right ay, hich is rdinarily all ed by

the Civil C de. ining perati ns c nsist a c nsiderable c nstructi n and
depl yment that ill deinitely ust ners r ccupants beneicial
nership their lands. Once mining perati ns c mmence, there is already
c mpensable taking. re ver, mining is r a public beneit. All requisites
taking are there re present. (Dipidi v. garth Savers v. zun)
"he limited meaning attached t "public use" is "use by the public" r "public
empl yment," that "a duty must dev lve n the pers n r c rp rati n h lding
pr perty appr priated by right eminent d main t urnish the public ith
the use intended, and that there must be a right n the part the public, r
s me p rti n it, r s me public r quasipublic agency n behal the
public, t use the pr perty ater it is c ndemned."
"he m re generally accepted vie sees "public use" as "public advantage,
c nvenience, r beneit, and that anything hich tends t enlarge the
res urces, increase the industrial energies, and pr m te the pr ductive p er
any c nsiderable number the inhabitants a secti n the state, r
hich leads t the gr th t ns and the creati n ne res urces r the
empl yment capital and lab r, [hich] c ntributes t the general elare
and the pr sperity the h le c mmunity." 9n this jurisdicti n, "public use"
is deined as "hatever is beneicially empl yed r the c mmunity."
(Barangay v. CA)
"he p er eminent d main is an inherent and indispensable p er the
State. Als called the p er expr priati n, it is described as the highest
and m st exact idea pr perty remaining in the g vernment that may be
acquired r s me public purp se thr ugh a meth d in the nature a
c mpuls ry sale t the State. By virtue its s vereign character, the
exercise the p er prevails ver the n nimpairment clause, and is clearly
superi r t the inal and execut ry judgment rendered by a c urt in an
ejectment case. (anapat v. CA)
eaningul statements in the b dy the - arrant the c nclusi n
that the expr priated pr perties uld remain t be s until it as c nirmed
that Pahug Airp rt as n l nger " ". "his inerence urther implies
that ater the Pahug Airp rt ceased its undertaking as such and the
expr priated l ts ere n t being used r any airp rt expansi n pr ject, the
rights "/" the expr priated P ts s. 916 and 920 as beteen the State
and their rmer ners, petiti ners herein, $* /1*%/+')>* )
9n execut ry c ntracts there is a ide ield r raud because unless they be in
riting there is n palpable evidence the intenti n the c ntracting
parties. "he statute has precisely been enacted t prevent raud. H ever, i a
c ntract has been t tally r partially per rmed, the exclusi n par l

m
evidence uld pr m te raud r bad aith, r it uld enable the deendant

t keep the beneits already delivered by him r m the transacti n in litigati n,
and, at the same time, evade the bligati ns, resp nsibilities r liabilities
assumed r c ntracted by him thereby. (actan v. "udtud)
!9m -* &$,# %# just and c mplete equivalent the l ss, hich the
ner has t suer by reas n the expr priati n. Sum equivalent t
market value. ust be direct payments and n t just dep sits.
-* $,# %#Iair arket aalue (+) c nsequential Damages ()
c nsequential Beneits
%32+*."he market value a piece land is attained by a

c nsiderati n all th se acts, hich make it c mmercially valuable. "he rule
that sh uld be ll ed is that: the market value a pr perty 9s the price
hich 9t ill bring hen 9t is ered r sale by ne h desires, but is n t
bliged t sell it, and is b ught by ne h us under n necessity having it.
"he vie the c mmissi ners h are disinterested land ners 9s given
greater eight than that an rdinary tier acts. (City anila v. gstrada)
#+ *+ value must be as the time the iling, hich is als the
time the taking.
Mm iling c mes later than the taking value at the taking
Mm aalue increased independently value is at the iling
Mm ust be determined n trial by c mmissi ners (gAPCO v.
3ineda) but the rep rt is n t inal
r c nclusive but
rec mmendat ry
Mm ay be in the rm m ney r g vernment b nds, as l ng as it
is certain
Mm act rs t
be c nsidered: nature
the pr perty, uture
c nvertibility, change in value pes , value standing cr ps,
time taking
" all the c urt t change the am unt the dep sit as it sees it, at any
time during the pr ceeding, the right p ssessi n granted t the railr ad
c mpany might ell bec me illus ry and there re makes the c urt's acti n
unc nstituti nal. (anila ailr ad v. 3aredes)
When the plainti takes p ssessi n /!the instituti n the
c ndemnati n pr ceedings, the value sh uld be ixed as the time the
taking the said p ssessi n, n t the iling the c mplaint, and the latter
sh uld be the basis r the determinati n the value. When the taking the
pr perty inv lved &%#&%) %% */ 1*#, the c mmencement
,&)%#( , it ill be the basis the value the land. (unicipality
Daet v. CA)
1A 2010
" determine just c mpensati n r lands appr priated by the g vernment,

the basis sh uld be the value the land r price at the time it as taken r m
the ner and appr priated by the g vernment n t its uture p tential. (3C
v. CA)
9n an expr priati n pr ceeding, the c urt technically has the p er t
determine the just c mpensati n r the pr perty. 3r visi ns hich encr ach
up n judicial prer gatives and renders the c urt inutile in a matter hich is
reserved t it r inal determinati n is v id. (g3ZA v. Dulay)
"he nature land bank b nd rtiies the vie that resp ndent may be
c mpelled t accept th se b nds at their ace value. Agrarian re rm cann t
be ully realized ith ut the interventi n the g vernment particularly in the
payment just c mpensati n it is nly ith the supp rt the g vernment
that payment just c mpensati n t land ner may be realized. (addumba
v. S9S)
Am ng the act r t be c nsidered in arriving at a air market value the
pr perty are the c st acquisiti n, the current value the pr perties, its
actual r p tential uses and tax declarati ns. C mmissi ner's rep rt alth ugh
nly advis ry and persuasive and by n means inal, there re, may be used
as basis r determinati n just c mpensati n. (Berkent tter v. CA)
A trial be re the C mmissi ners is indispensable t all the parties t
present evidence n the issue just c mpensati n there re, the
app intment c mmissi ners is mandat ry requirement 9n expr priati n
cases r it is a substantial right that may n t be d ne aay ith ut any
reas n (eralc v. 3ineda/3C v. CA)
ust c mpensati n means n t nly the c rrect determinati n the am unt
t be paid t the ner the land but als the payment the land ithin
reas nable time r m its taking. (Pand Bank v. CA)
9n light the declared unc nstituti nality 3.D. . 76, 3.D. .1533 and
just
3.D. . 42 ins ar as they sancti n executive determinati n
c mpensati n in expr priati n cases, %% %$,%"#'%(
%$$)%, %#! */>&,,'&&*%#( ,#)#
$* /!%$+' (*#))#"+%)&$,+%#&% &%# 5
! *+ ?, .., there must be a dep sit ith the ati nal r 3r vincial
"reasurer the value the subject pr perty as pr visi nally and pr mptly
ascertained and ixed by the c urt having jurisdicti n the pr ceedings.
(3anes v. a9SCA)
%(%#+-*% )%&%#! ,&%+(%#* .Special Agrarian C urts,
hich are egi nal "rial C urts, are given riginal and exclusive jurisdicti n

m
ver t categ ries cases, t it: (1) "all petiti ns r the determinati n
just c mpensati n t land ners" and (2) "the pr secuti n all criminal
enses under [.A. . 6657].
"he valuati n pr perty in eminent d main is #%++'>*)%&%+
!*#&%# hich cann t be vested in administrative agencies. (epublic v. CA)
$%#%#!!%$2"+*."he nature and character the land
at the time its taking is the principal criteri n t determine just
c mpensati n t the land ner.
"he air market valuati n land t be taken sh uld n t be based n the value
adjacent l ts i the nature the adjacent l ts is dierent r m the land
s ught t be expr priated. (3C v. Hens n)
)$%#% %"(*%)+%# !)$%#%#!>* &$,# %#
##&# %*%#+*#+ %% &#&+* %"*,#-*)%&%'
),%"%#($!%,(%"."he bjecti n that 3.D. 27 is
unc nstituti nal as it sets limitati ns n the judicial prer gative determining
just c mpensati n is beret merit. "he determinati n just c mpensati n
under 3.D. . 27, like in Secti n 16 (d) .A. 6657 r the CA3 Pa, is n t
inal r c nclusive. nless b th the land ner and the tenantarmer accept
the valuati n the pr perty by the Barri C mmittee n Pand 3r ducti n and
the DA, the parties may bring the dispute t c urt in rder t determine the
appr priate am unt c mpensati n, a task unmistakably ithin the
prer gative the c urt. (Sigre v. CA)
#++()*#>* &$,# %#% ##*()% &#%#*
0,,%%# +)'/&$!%#+#)0&*.3etiti ner
alleges that the intended public use as rendered nugat ry by the
unreas nable just c mpensati n ixed by the c urt, hich is bey nd the
means the intended beneiciaries the s cialized h using pr ject.
,*/+%&,*, ! &%+%=)* %#(,>&% #%##''
)%$%#% )/'$*#!>* &$,# %#&*
!%0) 3etiti ner cann t be permitted t institute c ndemnati n pr ceedings
against resp ndents nly t aband n it later hen it inds the am unt just
c mpensati n unacceptable. (HA v. Heirs 9sidr uivel nd )
0)% ."he tax credit that is c ntemplated under the Seni r Citizens
Act is a rm just c mpensati n r private pr perty taken by the State r
public use, n t a remedy r taxes that ere err ne usly r illegally
assessed/c llected. (C9 v. Central Puz n)
1A 2010
"ax credit is n t "ax deducti n. "he tax credit is the am unt representing the
20 percent disc unt granted t a qualiied seni r citizen by all establishments
relative t their utilizati n transp rtati n services, h tels and similar l dging
establishments, restaurants, drugst res, recreati n centers, theaters, cinema
h uses, c ncert halls, circuses, carnivals and ther similar places culture,
leisure and amusement, hich disc unt shall be deducted by the said
establishments r m their gr ss inc me r inc me tax purp ses and r m
their gr ss sales r valueadded tax r ther percentage tax purp ses. "ax
credit accrued during a iscal year hen n taxes ere paid may be applied t
succeeding iscal years. (C9 v. Bic landia)
9n the event hen the g vernment is bliged t return the land expr priated
and the private party is bliged t return the purchase price but the
g vernment ails t c mply, such ailure am unts t expr priati n ith ut just
c mpensati n. "he private party is entitled t c mpensati n in the rm
rentals and interest. (actan v. rgell )
gxpr priati n pr ceedings initiated 56 years ag by the g vernment but n t
acted up n (n payment c mpensati n, n legislative appr val, and n
actual entry) is n t a valid expr priati n. 9t transers n rights t the
expr priating party and d es n t deprive the ner its auth rity ver the
land. "he n npayment just c mpensati n and the am unt time that has
passed may als be a bar t the g vernment because laches. (San que v.
epublic)
(9m -*)%&%+ "% the exercise eminent d main is limited the
ll ing areas c ncern:
1.m adequacy c mpensati n,
2.m necessity the taking, and
3.m public use character the purp se the taking
gxcepti n: hen land is r subdivisi n and resale r s cial justice by
legislature.
vernment may n t caprici usly r arbitrarily ch se hat private pr perty
sh uld be taken. Due pr cess must be served. With due rec gniti n the
p er C ngress t designate the particular pr perty t bet taken and h
much there may be c ndemned in the exercise the p er
expr priati n, it is still a judicial questi n hether in the exercise such
c mpetence, the party adversely aected is a victim partiality and
prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista)
B3 340 eectively superseded the decisi n the c urt and the trial c urt did
n t c mmit any grave abuse discreti n in dismissing the case pending
be re it n the gr und the enactment B3 340. Said decisi n is n
-
m
bstacle t the legislative arm the g vernment. (epublic v. De Knecht)

ixing just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n. arket value al ne cann t
substitute the c urt's judgment 9n expr priati n pr ceeding. (an t c v. HA)
"here is n extreme necessity t inv lve judicial acti n i petiti ner has n t
exhausted his administrative remedies (ilitante v. CA)
J 3

When d es la impair bligati ns c ntracts:
i.m 9 it changes the terms and c nditi ns a legal c ntract ither as
t the time r m de per rmance
ii.m 9 it imp ses ne c nditi ns r dispenses ith th se expressed
iii.m 9 it auth rizes r its satisacti n s mething dierent r m that
pr vided in its terms.
A mere change in pr cedural remedies hich d es n t change the substance
the c ntract and hich still leaves a remedy r en rcement d es n t
impair bligati ns c ntracts. (H me Building and P an Assn. v. Blaisdell;
utter v. gsteban)
+%&.All c ntracts are made subject t an implied reservati n the
pr tective p er the state and that there re statutes, hich validly
exercise this, reserved p er d es n t impair c ntracts (Del sari v. Del s
Sant s)
9n all cases:
m 9mpairment sh uld nly reer t the remedy and n t t substantive
right,
m State must p stp ne the en rcement bligati n but cann t
destr y it by making the remedy utile and
m "he alterati n r change that the ne legislati n desires t rite
must n t be burdened ith restricti ns and c nditi ns that uld
make the remedy hard t pursue.
"here re, p lice p er may nly be inv ked and justiied by: 1) an
emergency, 2) temp rary in nature, 3) can nly be exercised up n reas nable
c nditi ns.

"he c ntract may be altered validly i it inv lves the public interest, t hich
private interests must yield lies a p stulate the existing s cial rder. 9n
1A 2010
rman vs. Baltim re, the c urt stressed that every c ntract inv lving the
public interest suers inirmity and may be changed i required by public
interest. (3hilippine aeterans Bank gmpl yees v. 3hilippine aeterans Bank)
Pegislati n appr priate t saeguard said interest may m diy r abr gate
c ntracts already in eect. r n t nly are existing las read int c ntracts in
rder t ix the bligati ns as beteen the parties but the reservati n
essential attributes s vereign p er is als read int c ntracts as a
p stulate the legal rder.
" c me under the c nstituti nal pr hibiti n, the la must eect a change in
the rights the parties ith reerence t each ther and n t ith reerence t
n nparties. (Abella v. PC)
3*#%&%,+ +*%#. alth ugh n t strictly an rdinance is a z ning
regulati n hich is a p lice p er measure hich the municipality has the
p er t pass. (3resley v. BelAir aillage Assn. als held in Ortigas v. gA"9
Bank)
"he requirement n tice the rescissi n under the aceda la d esnt
change the time r m de per rmance r imp se ne c nditi ns r
dispense ith the stipulati ns regarding the binding eect the c ntract.
either d es it ithdra the remedy r its en rcement. At m st, it merely
pr vides r a pr cedure in aid the remedy rescissi n. "here re, it
d esnt impair the bligati ns a c ntract. (S9SKA Devel pment v. Oice
the 3resident)
m
9ncludes ranchises but n t licenses r permits since these are special

privileges, marriage c ntracts, public ice
A pr visi n la pr hibiting the use the all tted m dernizati n unds r
payment a c ntract already entered int by the g vernment is vi lative
the C nstituti nal 3r hibiti n n the passage las that impair the bligati n
c ntracts. (3hilc nsa v. gnriquez)
the State, in the exercise p lice p er, may n t be precluded by the
restricti n
n n nimpairment c ntract r m altering, m diying and
amending the mining leases r agreements. (iners Ass c. v. act ran)
"he unilateral cancellati n the ranchise, hich has the status a c ntract,
%*#%&%#(#)>* %!%/+&* is int lerable in any system
here the ule Pa prevails. (Pim v 3acquing)
A la pr viding ne gr unds r the ejectment tenants cann t be applied
retr actively t existing c ntracts but is deemed t be read int the c ntracts
hen the lease is reneed. (uarez v CA)
-6
m
C nservat rs a bank may verrule administrative acts the management,

but it may n t interere r impair the per rmance a validly perected
c ntract. (39B v. CA)
C ntracts lab r are impressed ith public interest and may be subject t
state regulati n and must yield t the c mm n g d. atters inv lving the
public interest and elare cann t be placed by c ntract bey nd the p er
the State t regulate and c ntr l. (CA v 3OgA)
Statutes that are curative and remedial in nature, h se purp se is t
saeguard the interest the public (such as real estate buyers) r m
unscrupul us schemers must be given retr active eect and sh uld aect
c ntracts that are already in existence. "he C urt cann t all the injustice
that ill be r ught by a strictly pr spective applicati n the la. 9 3.D. 957
ere t exclude r m its c verage the m rtgage c ntract herein, the purp se
3D. 957 ill be translated int a eeble exercise p lice p er. (3B v.
Oice the 3resident; gugeni v. Dril n)
"he n nimpairment clause the C nstituti n must yield t the l tier
purp ses targeted by the g vernment. ( v. CA citing gugeni v. Dril n in
justiying the regulat ry measures taken by the 3OgA inv lving Overseas
per rming artists)
%$/+%&# ,$% #)+%&# ($# are $
,%"%+( granted by the State t qualiiedentities, and d n t vest in the
latter a permanent rirrev cable right. "hey may be validly amended,
m diied, replaced r rescinded by the Chie gxecutive hennati nal interests
s require.
"hey are #)$)&#& ithin the purvie the due pr cess
laclause, merely instruments by hich the Stateregulates the utilizati n
and disp siti n rest res urces t the end that public elare is pr m ted.
(C& "imber v Alcala)
3residential Warranty is n t a c ntract but a mere license r privilege. 9t has
been c nsistently held that licenses, especially c ncerning timber harvest, are
neither pr perty n r pr perty rights and d n t create a vested right. All
licenses may be rev ked r rescinded by executive acti n. (Alvarez v. 39CO3
es urces)
A tax exempti n c ntained in the Certiicates egistrati n is ar r m being
c ntractual in nature in the sense that the n nimpairment clause the
C nstituti n can rightly be inv ked. (epublic v. Cagui a)
1A 2010
"he Central bank may prevent the shareh lders a bank under
c nservat rship r m c llecting dividends i public interest s requires. 3ublic
elare is superi r t private rights. (epublic 3lanters Bank v. H n. Agana)
"he p er a banks c nservat r cann t extend t the rev cati n existing
valid c ntracts. 9 the legislature itsel cann t rev ke a valid existing c ntract,
h can it delegate such a n nexisting p er t a mere c nservat r?
(3r ducers Bank the 3hil v. PC)
9ncentive pay r beneit is in the nature a b nus hich is n t a demandable
r en rceable bligati n. "he rced reund, pursuant t a la r an executive
rder, an incentive pay hich as r ngly released, d es n t c nstitute an
impairment c ntracts. (Blaquera v. Alcala)
#&*+00$,%# " * !#&% 00$,%#
C ntractual tax exempti ns must n t be c nused ith tax exempti ns
granted under ranchises. A ranchise partakes the nature a grant hich is
bey nd the purvie the n nimpairment clause the C nstituti n. nder
the C nstituti n, a ranchise is alays under the c nditi n that it shall be
subject t amendment, alterati n r repeal by C ngress hen the c mm n
g d s requires. C ntractual tax exempti ns, h ever, may inv ke the n n
impairment clause. (gAPCO v. 3r vince Paguna)
A license vi lating pr visi n la is v id any rev cati n there r
declarati n nullity d es n t vi late n nimpairment clause. (epublic v
sem r)
gnd rsement billb ards an elect ral candidate may be regulated/rem ved
by COgPgC ith ut vi lating the n nimpairment clause as a valid exercise
p lice p er because the billb ards assumed partisan p litical character
hen he iled r candidacy. (Chavez v COgPgC)
A m rtgage inv lving inalienable land is v id ab initi and cann t be the
s urce rights. "he n nimpairment clause may n t be inv ked, because the
states restraint n private individuals r m h lding nership r vested rights
n the said land ( rest) is a valid exercise p lice p er. (Pand Bank the
3hilippines v. epublic the 3hilippines, represented by the Direct r
Pands)

.-

-
m
5
89
33

3

3 3

3
7

859
3
3

3

33 3
3

89
3

? 3
3
8-9

3

3
3

3

* )%+#" %(%#
m Questi ning initiated by la en rcement icer ater ne is taken int
cust dy r deprived his reed m acti n in any signiicant ay
%( : (1) t remain silent (2) t c unsel and (3) t be in rmed rights
**ight t c unsel is intended t preclude the slightest c erci n as uld lead
the accused t admit s mething alse. "he layer sh uld never prevent the
accused r m reely and v luntarily speaking the truth (3e ple v. Payus )
"he rules n cust dial investigati ns d n t apply hen the c nessi n is
made t a private individual because that situati n uld n t be ne a
cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. "aat)
"he presumpti n regularity icial acts d es n t apply t incust dy
c nessi ns. 9n rder r it t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh that
the c nstituti nal saeguards ere bserved in btaining the c nessi n.
(3e ple v. " lentin )
3%#) %(
3* /&%)
Y u have a right t remain silent
Anything y u say r d ill be used against y u in c urt
1A 2010
Y u have a right t c nsult ith a layer and t have him during the
interr gati n.
9 y u are an indigent, a layer ill be app inted t represent y u.
. gven i the pers n c nsents t anser questi ns ith ut the assistance
c unsel, the m ment he asks r a layer at any p int in the investigati n,
the interr gati n must cease until an att rney is present.
9 the reg ing pr tecti ns and arnings are n t dem nstrated during the
trial t have been bserved by the pr secuti n, n evidence btained as a
result the interr gati n can be used against him. (iranda v. Ariz na)
"hese rights bec me available hen the investigati n is n l nger a general
inquiry int an uns lved crime but has begun t cus n a particular suspect,
the suspect has been taken int p lice cust dy, the p lice carry ut a pr cess
interr gati n that lends itsel t eliciting incriminating statements; usually
ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy r therise deprived his
reed m acti n in any signiicant ay.
(3. v. "an)
1. Ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy
2. When a pers n is therise deprived his reed m acti n in any
signiicant ay (3. v. Cagui a)
3. When the investigati n is being undertaken by the g vernment ith respect
t a criminal ense. (9n 3. v. rad , a baranggay captains c nversati n
ith the accused is part an ng ing investigati n. But in 3. v. Zuela,hen
the accused talked ith a may r AS CO9DA" and n t as a la en rcement
icer, his admissi n is admissible)
4. Signing arrest rep rt and b king sheets (3. v. Sim n)
n t until there is a p lice investigati n.
gx: a pers n g ing thr ugh an audit d es n t have these rights, a pers n
presenting himsel r his admissi n (v luntary surrender), 3 lice line up
(unless there is a m ve t elicit admissi n), admissi n t s me ne n t a
public icer (verbal c nessi ns t a radi ann uncer)
**A 7438 has extended the C nstituti nal guarantee t situati ns in hich
an individual has n t been rmally arrested but has merely been invited r
questi ning. (3e ple v. D mantay; 3e ple v. "an)
<
"he criminal pr cess includes the investigati n t the iling charges,
the preliminary investigati n and investigati n ater charges are iled, and the
peri d r trial. "he rights under Secti n 12(1) ere c nceived r the irst
-
m
phase, hen the enquiry is under the c ntr l the p lice icers.
Sec. 12(1) DOgS O" apply t pers ns under preliminary investigati n r
already charged in c urt ith a crime (pe ple v. Ays n)
0 even ater the charges are iled, i the p lice still attempt t extract
c nessi ns r admissi ns utside judicial supervisi n, secti n 12(1) sh uld
still apply.
+%&%#.,
When petiti ner as identiied by the c mplainant at the p lice lineup, he
had n t been held yet t anser r a criminal ense. "he p lice lineup is
n t a part the cust dial inquest; hence, he as n t yet entitled t c unsel.
"hus, it as held that hen the pr cess had n t yet shited r m the
investigat ry t the accusat ry as hen p lice investigati n d es n t elicit a
c nessi n the accused may n t yet avail the services his layer.
Since petiti ner in the c urse his 9dentiicati n in the p lice lineup had n t
yet been held t anser r a criminal ense, he as, there re, n t deprived
his right t be assisted by c unsel because the&&* ' pr cess had n t
yet set in.
While the C urt inds n real need t a rd a suspect the services c unsel
during a p lice lineup, the m ment there is a m ve r even an urge said
investigat rs t elicit admissi ns r c nessi ns r even plain in rmati n
hich may appear inn cent r inn cu us at the time, r m said suspect, he
sh uld then and there be assisted by c unsel, unless he aives the right, but
the aiver shall be made in riting and in the presence c unsel. (amb a
v. udge Cruz)
A pers n already under cust dial investigati n h is placed in a p lice lineup
is entitled t Secti n 12 rights. (3e ple v. acam)
As a rule, an accused is n t entitled t the assistance c unsel in a p lice
lineup c nsidering that such is usually n t a part the cust dial inquest.
H ever, the case at bar is dierent inasmuch as accusedappellant
+)' *#) &* )%+ %#" %(%# hen these
ut c urt
identiicati ns ere c nducted by the p lice.
We have thus ruled that any identiicati n an unc unseled accused made in
a p lice lineup, r in a sh up r that matter, ! !
is inadmissible as evidence against him. H ever
the inadmissibility these ut c urt identiicati ns d es n t render the in
c urt identiicati n accusedappellant inadmissible r being ruits the
p is n us tree. (3e ple v. gsc rdial)
1A 2010
5.m Signed r thumb marked.

0&,%#
"he accused as c nvicted n the strength the testim nies 3
eyeitnesses h p sitively identiied him as the gunman. H ever, he
vig r usly assails his ut c urt identiicati n by these eyeitnesses.
sing the t tality circumstances test, the alleged irregularities cited by the
accused did n t result in his misidentiicati n n r as he denied due pr cess.
"here is n thing r ng in Pein s identiicati n the accused in an
un ccupied h use in rbes 3ark. "he rec rds reveal that this m de as
res rted t by the auth rities r security reas ns. "he Pein s reused t have
the identiicati n at the B9 ice as it as cramped ith pe ple and ith high
security risk. Pein s ear r his saety as n t irrati nal. He and his
c mpani ns had been sh t in c ld bl d in ne the exclusive, supp sedly
sae subdivisi ns in the metr p lis.
"here is n hard and ast rule as t the place here suspects are identiied by
itnesses. 9dentiicati n may be d ne in pen ield. 9t is ten d ne in
h spitals hile the crime and the criminal are still resh in the mind the
victim (3e ple v. "eehankee)
0&,%# (1) investigati n by an administrative b dy, (2)
sp ntane us statements, (3) audit examinati n, (4) n t in p lice cust dy, (5)
marked m ney, (6) b king sheets, (7) taking pictures, (8) incidental t a
laul arrest, (9) b dy examinati n, (10) preliminary investigati n
"he c nstituti nal right extends nly t testim nial c mpulsi n and n t hen
the b dy the accused is pr p sed t be examined.
gx: parain test
ahinay Case: has right t c mmunicate ith layer and amily, has right t
aive any rights pr vided it is v luntary, kn ingly and intelligently
*1234
!

)$% %# acts, declarati ns r missi ns the party as t a relevant act.
#! %# declarati n the accused ackn ledging his guilt t the
ense charged, r any ense necessarily included therein.
" be admissible:
1.m C nessi n must be v luntary,
2.m ade ith the assistance c mpetent and independent c unsel,
3.m "he c nessi n must be express,
4.m 9t must be in riting,
-m
Advice 3 licepr vided c unsel, telling the accused that tit uld be better
r him t speak r tell the truth d es n t urnish any inducement, t render a
c nessi n thereby btained threats r pr mises are applied.
eneral ule: gxtrajudicial statements, as a rule, are admissible against their
respective declarants pursuant t the rule that the act, declarati n r missi n
a party as t a relevant act may be given in evidence against him.
0 the rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence nly against the
pers n making it, rec gnizes several excepti ns:
#+&2%#( #! %# When several pe ple are charged ith an
ense, and there c uld have been O c llusi n beteen them regarding their
c nessi ns, the act that statements are in all material respects identical, is
c nirmat ry the c nessi n the c deendants, and is )$% %/+
against
ther pe ple implicated therein. "hey are als
admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the pers ns t sh the
pr bability the latters actual participati n in the c mmissi n the crime.
9llegal C nessi ns/Admissi ns are inadmissible against the s urce the
c nessi n B " they are admissible against the pers n the
c nstituti nal pr hibiti n.
9t is but natural r ne h surrenders t the p lice t give reas n r
explanati n r his act surrendering. 9 he v luntarily admits the killing and
surrendered precisely because he anted t
admit t
the killing, the
c nstituti nal rights t be in rmed his right t silence and t c unsel may
n t be inv ked. (3e ple v. "aylaran)
%(/%#!$)!% %(
"he right t be in rmed must be presumed t c ntemplate the transmissi n
a meaningul in rmati n rather than just the cerem nial and perunct ry
recitati n an abstract c nstituti nal principle. "he icer is n t nly duty
b und t tell the pers n the right the latter is entitled, but als t explain their
eects in practical terms. (3e ple v. am s, 3e ple v. Cagui a)
"he right a pers n t be in rmed implies a c rrelative bligati n n the
part the p lice investigat r t explain, and c ntemplates an eective
c mmunicati n that results in understanding hat is c nveyed. (3e ple v.
icandr ; 3e ple v. 3inlac)
%($,##)#),#)#*# +
A layer is deemed engaged by the accused hen he(accused) never raised
1A 2010
any bjecti n against the layers app intment.

"he accused may reject the c unsel ch sen r him and ask r an ther ne
When the accused never raised any bjecti n against the layers
app intment during the c urse the investigati n and the accused thereater
subscribes t the veracity his statement be re the searing icer, the
accused may n be deemed t have engaged the layer pr vided by the
investigat rs. (3e ple v. erez; 3e ple v. Suarez)
"he c urt, during trial, is n t duty b und t appraise the accused that he has
the right t remain silent. 9t is c unsel that sh uld claim the right r him. 9
c unsel d es n t claim the right and calls the accused t the itness stand,
then he aives the right t be silent. (3e ple v. "ampus)
Wh are n t independent c unsel:
a.m Special c unsel, public r private pr secut r, c unsel the
p lice, r a municipal att rney h se interest is adverse t that
the accused. (3e ple v. abr )
b.m A ay r (3e ple v. "alman)
c.m A baranggay captain (3e ple v. " maquin)
d.m Any ther h se interest may be adverse t that the accused
!!&%"#)%(%+#&*# +)!%#)
"he right t c unsel as denied Sunga during his executi n gxhibit A
admissi n be re the p lice n the gr und that the c unsel h assisted him,
Att. Agustin cam ra, as the City Pegal Oicer 3uert 3incesa.
"he right t c unsel inv lves m re than just the presence a layer in the
c urtr m r the mere pr p unding standard questi ns and bjecti ns;
rather it means an eicient and decisive legal assistance and n t a simple
perunct ry representati n.(3e ple v. Sunga)
%"! %(
ust be d ne in riting and in the presence c unsel.
"he state must bring the pers n t a place here there is a layer
When the accused stated that that he needed n c unsel, that he as g ing t
tell the truth, and did n t ask r a layer, his c nessi n is inadmissible. "he
auth rities ailed t apprise him his right t c unsel hen he r te the
c nessi n. An accuseds aiver his rights and signiicati n illingness t
make a c nessi n are cerem nies that require the presence c unsel.
( rales v. ncupa; 3e ple v. alit; Demaisip v. CA)

)$% %/+#)#)$% %/+"%)#&
-r
m
Only reers t extrajudicial c nessi n r admissi n made during cust dial

investigati n, evidence gathered ith ut c unsel is admissible.
gx: accused ut here the murder eap n is ith ut c unsel
admissible. But i evidence is und thr ugh an extrajudicial c nessi n
ith ut C unsel inadmissible
r in cust dy c nessi ns t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh that
the c nstituti nal saeguards ere bserved in btaining the c nessi n.
(agt t v. anguera)
9nracti ns the iranda ights render inadmissible nly the extrajudicial

r
made during the cust dial investigati n. "he
admissibility ther evidence, pr vided they are relevant t the issue and is
n t therise excluded by la r rules, is n t aected even i btained r
taken in the c urse cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. alimit)
Where a bl dstained knie is und as a c nsequence unc unseled
extrajudicial c nessi n, the knie is inadmissible as evidence because it is the
ruit a c nstituti nally inirm interr gati n. (Abale v. 3e ple)
What the C nstituti n pr hibits is the use physical r m ral c mpulsi n t
ext rt c mmunicati n r m the accused, but n t an inclusi n his b dy in
evidence hen it may be material. (utang v. 3e ple: n the admissibility
urine samples as evidence)
ay a receipt r pr perty seized

be admissible in evidence against him? , this is tantam unt t
an extrajudicial c nessi n.
Signature in a b king sheet and arrest rep rt O" an admissi n
nly pr ves the act the arrest.
guilt;
$$*#%'(%# +!.#&%$%#%#
"he right n t t be c mpelled t be a itness against himsel may be inv ked
n t nly in criminal pr ceedings but als in all ther types suits, including
reiture cases. What is c ntr lling is n t the character the suit but the
nature the pr ceedings. Sh uld a pers n be c mpelled t be a itness
against himsel, that pers n sh uld be pr vided ith immunity immunity
r m using the itness c mpelled testim ny and its ruits in any manner in
c nnecti n ith the criminal pr secuti n the itness and immunity t the
itness r m pr secuti n r an ense t hich his c mpelled testim ny
relates. 9 a pers n h testiied is n t ered immunity be re they ere
questi ned, alth ugh that pers n did n t inv ke his right against sel
incriminati n in such pr ceeding, his testim ny uld be inadmissible as
1A 2010
evidence. (alman v. 3amaran)

&%#5859*!&"%+#&%#%$%)%#K
3r hibited because they vitiate truth and assault the dignity the pers n.

7

6 3

3

7

%+ m de sh rt c ninement hich uld, ith reas nable certainty,
insure the attendance the accused at his trial; takes the rm a dep sit
m ney r its equivalent as a guarantee attendance. ailure t appear uld
reit the dep sit.
*,
1.m " h n r the presumpti n inn cence until his guilt is pr ve bey nd
reas nable d ubt
2.m " enable him t prepare hi deenses ith ut being subject t punishment
pri r t c nvicti n. (C rtes v. Catral)
Bail has neither n r purp se. (Almeda v. aillaluz)
Available t all pers ns detained, unless ense is punishable by eclusi n
3erpetua r Death hen the evidence against the accused is str ng (Bail is a
matter discreti n the c urts, s even pers ns h are n t entitled CA
be granted bail)
As a necessary c nsequence the nature a bail b nd, a pers n admitted t
bail may be prevented by the c urt r m leaving the c untry. A bail b nd is
intended t make a pers n available anytime he is needed by the c urt.
(an t c, r. v. CA)

9mp sing bail in excessive am unt c uld render meaningless the right t bail.
Setting the ball in the am unt the civil liability is excessive. (Yap v. CA)

%$%%# #%(/%+
(1) pers n claiming the right must be under actual detenti n;
(2) enerally, the right is available nly t criminal cases
*** Bail d es n t grant the right t leave the c untry.
-
m
"here is #c nstituti nal right t bail hen the ll ing c nditi ns c ncur:
1.m Accused is charge ith an ense punishable by
2.m gvidence against him is str ng. (agn v Abbas)
** Ater c nvicti n, bail is
hile the case is n appeal
** gven th ugh there is n c nstituti nal right, bail may still be granted
because the matter is discreti nary ith the c urt r g d and valid reas ns,

Since the l ss right (t bail) depends up n the quantum evidence against
him, the l ss the right can be determined
(arc s v.
Cruz)
0)%%# .
On December 10, 1948, the eneral Assembly ad pted the niversal
Declarati n Human ights in hich the right t lie, liberty and all the ther
undamental rights every pers n ere pr claimed. "hus, in ej v.
Direct r 3ris ns, %#(#%#(/%+, ,&%"),
+)*#)# %*%#,%#&%,+ !%#
&+%#,!+!+#)
9 bail can be granted in dep rtati n cases, e see n justiicati n hy it
sh uld n t als be all ed in extraditi n cases. Pikeise, c nsidering that
,,+% ),%#& % # #'%&##
/%#"2)%#0)%%#& . Ater all, b th are administrative
pr ceedings here the inn cence r guilt the pers n detained is n t in
issue.
Obvi usly, an extraditi n pr ceeding, hile stensibly administrative, bears all
earmarks a criminal pr cess. ,#%+0)%$'/ */>&)
,+#() %#!+%/'#)!&)# !
)$#)%#( !++%#(,&)%#( "emp rary detenti n may
be a necessary step in the pr cess extraditi n, but the length time the
detenti n sh uld be reas nable. ec rds sh that un z )/#
)%#)!"859' %*"%#(/#&#"%&)!
#'&%$
"he timeh n red principle demands that the
3hilippines h n r its bligati ns under the gxtraditi n "reaty it entered int
ith the H ng K ng Special Administrative egi n. H ever, it d es n t
necessarily mean that in keeping ith its treaty bligati ns, the 3hilippines
sh uld diminish a p tential extraditees rights t lie, liberty, and due pr cess.
re s , here these rights are guaranteed als by internati nal c nventi ns,
t hich the 3hilippines is a party. We sh uld n t deprive an extraditee his
1A 2010
right t apply r bail, pr vided that a certain standard r the grant is

satisact rily met. ( vernment HK v. Olalia)
**gxtraditi n is a criminal pr ceeding. Hence, since bail is available nly in
criminal pr ceedings, a resp ndent in an extraditi n pr ceeding is n t entitled
t bail. He sh uld apply r bail in the c urt here he ill be tried. ( nited
States v. udge 3uruganan, 2002)

& )$%#%#(/%+
1.m Ability t p st bail
2.m ature the ense
3.m imp sable penalty,
4.m character and reputati n the accused,
5.m health the accused,
6.m strength the evidence,
7.m pr bability appearing r the trial,
8.m reiture b nds,
9.m hether accused as a ugitive hen arrested,
10.m 9 under b nd in an ther case. (Sunga v. udge Salud)

3%+%'*#)*3 ++.A s ldier under c urt martial d es n t enj y
the right t bail because the disciplinary structure the military and
because s ldiers are all ed the iduciary right t bear arms and can cause
great hav c. urtherm re, traditi n has rec gnized the n nexistence the
right t bail. gqual pr tecti n cann t be inv ked because it nly applies t
th se h are equally situated. (C mmendad r v. de ailla)

0& %"%+.Where the right t bail exists, it sh uld n t be rendered
nugat ry by requiring a sum that is excessive. 9 the C nstituti n did n t
pr hibit his, the right t bail bec mes meaningless. "he s le permissible
uncti n m ney bail is t assure the accused's presence at trial, and
declared that bail set at a higher igure than an am unt reas nably calculated
t ulill thus purp se is "excessive"(De Pa Camara v. gnage)
A judge cann t require a strictly cash b nd and disall an attempt t p st a
surety b nd r pr visi nal liberty. "he burden imp sed by requiring a strictly
cash b nd can make the bail c nstituti nally excessive. (Almeda v. aillaluz)

m "he accused must inv ke such right then bail hearing ill c mmence
ll ing due pr cess
*% !%+-*)(%##,,+%&%#!%+
1) tiy the pr secut r the hearing r bail
2) C nduct a hearing r such applicati n, even i pr secuti n d es n t
-
m
present evidence
3) Decide i the evidence guilt is str ng
4) 9 the evidence is n t str ng, grant bail (Basc v. apatal )
(gvidence is str ng hen there is evident guilt r a great presumpti n guilt)

!"%)#E, *$,%#(
0m
Clear, str ng evidence hich leads a ellguarded dispassi nate
judgement t the c nclusi n that the ense has been c mmitted as
charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he ill pr bably be
punished capitally i the la is administered
0m
Str ng, clear, and c nvincing t an unbiased judgment and excludes all
reas nable pr bability any ther c nclusi n.
0m
"est is n t hether the evidence establishes guilt bey nd reas nable
d ubt but rather hether it sh s evident guilt r a great presumpti n
guilt. (3e ple v. udge Cabral)
# &*%#) #, #"%)#&
gven hen the pr secut r reuses t adduce evidence in pp siti n t the
applicati n t grant and ix bail, the c urt may ask the pr secuti n such
questi ns as uld ascertain the strength the states evidence r judge the
adequacy the am unt bail. (" lentin v. udge Camana , r.)

&(#%=#& A means, aside r m bail, here an accused may btain
pr visi nal liberty.
9t is an bligati n rec rd entered int be re a c urt guaranteeing the
appearance
the accused r trial. 9t is in the nature a c ntract beteen
the surety and the State. (3e ple v. Abner)

- 89

3

859 3
3
- 3

3

3 3
3

3

3 3

-

1A 2010
%( !&&* )

*&
m A judge may replace an ther judge in rendering decisi n even i he nly
partially heard the testim ny the itnesses
m "he replacement judge may base his judgment c mpletely n c ld rec rd
be re him, in the same manner appellate c urts d . (3e ple v. araj s)
m Since administrative agencies are n t b und t ll the rules criminal
pr cedure, they may n t imp se criminal penalties. (Sc tys Department
St re v. icaller)
m due pr cess = that pr cedure established by la t ully pr tect lie,
liberty, and pr perty
the citizens
the State. (uez v.
Sandiganbayan)
.%(#$#)*% !-*)(
1.m 9n rm right t c unsel be re arraignment
2.m Ask i he desires aid c unsel
3.m rant reas nable time t d s
4.m 9 n ne, c urt assigns a de ici
3%+%'%/*#+
SC, generally, has n
aland ni)
supervis ry auth rity
ver military c urts. (Kur da v.
But by virtue "he ati nal Security C de (3D 1498), the SC d es n t

revie decisi ns military c mmissi ns but the C urt ilitary Appeals in
cases appealed t the later by military c mmissi ns. (Buscayn & Sis n v.
ilitary C mmissi ns)
ilitary "ribunals cann t try civilians, even i civil c urts are cl sed during
artial Pa. Civilians are entitled t udicial pr cess. ilitary "ribunals bel ng
t the gxecutive department. (Olaguer v. ilitary C mmissi n)
Once jurisdicti n is acquired, a pers n h is dr pped r m the military can
still be tried by military tribunals. urisdicti n, nce acquired, is n t l st up n
the instance the parties but c ntinue until terminati n the case. (Abadilla
v. am s)
a military c mmissi n r tribunal cann t try and exercise jurisdicti n, even
during the peri d
martial la,
ver civilians r
enses allegedly
c mmitted by them as l ng as the civil c urts are pen and uncti ning, and
that any judgment rendered by such b dy relating t a civilian is null and v id
r lack jurisdicti n n the part the military tribunal c ncerned. (Olaguer
v. ilitary C mmissi n)
-
m
Due pr cess la demands that in all criminal pr secuti ns (here the
accused stands t l se either his lie r his liberty), the accused shall be
entitled t , am ng thers, a trial. "he trial c ntemplated by the due pr cess
clause the C nstituti n, in relati n t the Charter as a h le, is a trial by
udicial 3r cess, n t by executive r military pr cess. ilitary C mmissi ns r
"ribunals, by hatever name they are called, are n t c urts ithin the
3hilippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. ilitary)
*$,%#!##&#&
With ut c nvicti n, a pers n is entitled t reinstatement.
B3 52: "he iling charges r the c mmissi n such crimes be re a civil
c urt military tribunal ater preliminary investigati n shall be
evidence such act (disqualiicati n) is invalid because the
evidence makes the accused suer as i already guilty even be re trial.
(Dumla v. C melec)
3reventive suspensi n is n t a penalty there re n
presumed inn cent
vi lati n
right t
be
"here are s me cases in hich prima acie evidence establishes a rati nal
c nnecti n t guilt.
i.e. 9n alversati n, inability t pr duce the m ney entrusted t public icial,
alth ugh prima acie evidence guilt, may still be dispr ved by c ntradict ry
evidence (shits the burden pr t the accused)

"he State, having the right t declare hich acts are criminal, ithin certain
elldeined limitati ns, has the right t speciy hat act(s) shall c nstitute a
crime, as ell as hat pr shall c nstitute prima acie evidence guilt, and
then t put up n the deendant the burden sh ing that such act(s) are
inn cent and are n t c mmitted ith any criminal intent r intenti n. ( S v.
Puling)
"he pr visi n
the glecti n C de that the iling charges r the
c mmissi n crimes be re a civil r military c urt shall be prima acie
evidence the c mmissi n an act disl yalty t the state is , as it
c ndemns a pers n be re he is inally heard. (Dumla v. C melec)
"he presumpti n inn cence may be verc me by a c ntrary presumpti n
unded up n the experience human c nduct. Pegislature may pr vide e
evidence guilt the accused and shit the burden pr
pr vided there be a rati nal c nnecti n beteen the acts pr vided and the
ultimate act presumed. (3e ple v. ing a; Banares v. CA)
1A 2010
%(/)
+$# !%(/)
1.m " be present at the trial
2.m ight t c unsel
3.m ight t an impartial judge
4.m ight t c nr ntati n
5.m ight t c mpuls ry pr cess t secure attendance itness

%(/, #.%+%#/ #%
Sc pe right t be present at the trial beteen arraignment and
pr mulgati n sentence
C nditi n r aiver ater arraignment, he may be c mpelled t appear r
identiicati n
1*% % !%+%#/ #%
1.m Accused already arraigned
2.m Duly n tiied the trial
3.m ailure t appear is unjustiiable
(3arada v. aeneraci n)

C nstituti n n unqualiiedly permits trial in absentia even capital
enses, pr vided that (1)

9

(2) &

.
eas n r requiring the presence the accused, despite his aiver, is, i
all ed t be absent in all the stages the pr ceedings ith ut giving the
3e ple's itnesses the pp rtunity t 9dentiy him in c urt, he may in his
deense say that he as never 9dentiied as the pers n charged in the
in rmati n and, there re, is entitled t an acquittal. (3e ple v. 3residing
udge)

*
the accused in case
his n nappearance ater
arraignment despite due n tice simply means that he thereby aives his right
t meet the itnesses ace t ace, am ng thers. An express aiver
appearance ater arraignment is the same eect. H ever, such aiver
appearance and trial in absentia d es n t mean that the pr secuti n is
thereby deprived its right t require the presence the accused r
purp ses identiicati n by its itnesses, hich is vital r the c nvicti n
the accused. (Carred v. 3e ple)
%(*# +
C unsel de Oici may be given by the c urts during arraignment.
-
m
er c unsel t the

Sten graphic n tes sh ing that the c urts ailed t
accused is n t en ugh t
verturn a c nvicti n. "he presumpti n is that the
c urts ll ed pr per pr cedure.
"he right t c unsel is necessary and indispensable:
During Cust dial 9nvestigati n t prevent the use duress and ther undue
inluence in extracting c nessi ns.
gven ater the c nvicti n the accused; even hen the case is n appeal.
When accused gives a qualiied plea.
When a s rn statement as extracted r m the accused.
(3e ple v. H lgad )
Duties imp sed n the judge by this right:
9 the deendant appears ith ut c unsel he must be in rmed by the c urt
that he has a right t have c unsel be re being arraigned, and must be asked
i he desires the aid c unsel. 9 he desires and is unable t empl y c unsel
the c urt must assign c unsel t deend him. "his is a right hich the
deendant sh uld n t be deprived , and the ailure the c urt t assign
c unsel r, ater c unsel has been assigned, t require him t per rm this
duty by appearing and deending the accused uld be suicient cause r the
reversal the case. (3e ple v. imen )
ight t c unsel is right t & c unsel. (eaning member the Bar)
3rearraignment duties the udge
1.m t in rm the accused that he has the right t have his n c unsel
be re being arraigned;
2.m ater giving such in rmati n, t ask accused hether he desires the aid
c unsel;
3.m i he s desires t pr cure the services c unsel, the c urt must grant
him reas nable time t d s ; and
4.m i he s desires t have c unsel but is unable t empl y ne, the c urt
must assign c unsel t deend him. (3e ple v. Agbayani)
"he duty t app int a c unsel is mandat ry nly t the time
arraignment. such duty exists here the accused has pr ceeded t
arraignment and then trial ith a c unsel his n ch ice. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
At m st, the app intment a c unsel in a situati n like the present
case [c unsel c nsistently ailed t appear r cr ss examinati n]
uld be discreti nary ith the trial c urt, hich discreti n ill n t be
interered ith in the absence grave abuse. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
"here is n denial the right t c unsel hen a c unsel as
1A 2010
app inted during the absence the accuseds c unsel (3e ple v.
Parraaga)
An accused h s ught t ithdra his appeal t the SC sh uld n t be
all ed n the gr und that he cann t a rd c unsel. He sh uld be given
c unsel instead. (3e ple v. i )
%(/#!$)
"he bject a ritten accusati n
1.m urnish the accused ith such a descripti n the charge against him
as ill enable him t make a deense.
2.m Avail himsel his c nvicti n r acquittal r pr tecti n against
urther pr secuti n r the same cause.
3.m " in rm the c urt the acts alleged, s that it may decide
hether they are suicient in la t supp rt a c nvicti n, i ne
sh uld be had. ( .S. v. Karelsen)
m 9n rder that this requirement be satisied, acts must be stated, n t
c nclusi ns la. "he C mplaint must c ntain a speciic allegati n
every act and circumstance necessary t c nstitute the crime charged
( S v. Karelsen)
Criminal
1.m
2.m
3.m
4.m
5.m
6.m
in rmati n must c ntain:

name the accused,
designati n given t the ense by the statute,
acts r missi n d ne c nstituting the ense,
ame the ended party,
Appr ximate time and date the c mmissi n the ense
"he place the c mmissi n the ense. (3e ple v. Quitl ng)
!!# #++()%##!$%#
A pers n cann t be charged m re than that c ntained in the in rmati n.
Qualiying circumstances must be alleged in the in rmati n as ell.
i.e. nly 2 c unts rape ere alleged in the charges. Alth ugh 6 c unts
rape ere pr ven during trial, the accused can nly be c nvicted n the 2
c unts alleged in the in rmati n.

"he appellant cann t be c nvicted the c mplex crime h micide ith
assault up n an agent a pers n in auth rity because the in rmati n iled
against the appellant the essential elements assault that the
accused then kne that, be re r at the time the c mmissi n the
assault, the victim as an agent the pers n in auth rity. (3e ple v. egala)
Disregarding the bjecti nable phrasing that uld c mplex rebelli n ith
murder and multiple rustrated murder, that indictment is t be read as
r
m
charging simple rebelli n. "he c mplaint petiti ners c unsel that he is

charged ith a crime that d es n t exist in the statute b ks, hile technically
c rrect s ar as the c urt has ruled that rebelli n may n t be c mplexed ith
ther
enses c mmitted
n the
ccasi n there , must there re be
dismissed as a mere light rhet ric. "he in rmati n d es indeed charge the
petiti ner ith a crime deined and punished by the evised 3enal C de:
simple rebelli n. (gnrile v. Salazar)
An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296 the 3C may be c nvicted
under Art 335 pr vided that the in rmati n alleges acts under Art. 335. the
real questi n r issue is hether r n t he per rmed the acts alleged in the
in rmati n in the manner therein set rth. 9 he did, it is n c nsequence
t him, either as a matter pr cedure r substantive right, h the la
den minates the crime hich th se acts c nstitute. (3e ple v. Pabad )
An accused charged ith nly ne ense rape may n t be c nvicted six
c unts rape. He cann t be held liable r m re than hat he as charged
ith. (3e ple v. anid )
Date and time the Oense: A pers n need n t speciy the exact time the
c mmissi n the ense time is an essential element that ense.
appr ximati n suiciently meets the requirement la.
%( ,)'%+
glements t be c nsidered:
1.m Pength delay
2.m eas n r delay
3.m "he e rt the deendant t assert his right
4.m 3rejudice caused t the deendant
Speedy Disp siti n: 9s usually relative t the circumstances
case. C unting )+' iling the in rmati n
the particular
O"g: Dismissal n the gr unds speedy trial is the same as an acquittal

and is a bar t an ther pr secuti n r the same ense (D uble e pardy
attaches)
Speedy trial means ne that can be had as s n ater indictment is iled as the
pr secuti n can ith reas nable diligence prepare r trial.
m
Pength delay is certainly a act r t c nsider; but ther act rs must

als be c nsidered such as the # r the delay, !! the
deendant t assert his right, and the ,>*)%& caused the deendant.
"he right
an accused t
1A 2010
speedy trial sh uld n t be utilized t
deprive the
State a reas nable

ines)
pp rtunity
airly indicting criminals. (3e ple v.
elie in 3 stp nements ith ut g d causeWhere a pr secuting icer,

ith ut g d cause, secures p stp nements the trial a deendant against
his pr test bey nd a reas nable peri d time, the accused is entitled t relie
by a pr ceeding in t c mpel a dismissal the in rmati n, r i
he be restrained his liberty, by t
btain his reed m. (C nde
v. ivera)
%($,%+%+
"rial by 3ublicity " have prejudice t due pr cess, there must be allegati n
and pr that judges have been duly inluenced by the publicity.
" arrant a inding prejudicial publicity, there must be
that the judges have been unduly inluenced, n t simply that they might be,
by the barrage publicity. 3etiti ners cann t rely n the subliminal eects
publicity. (Webb v. de Pe n; 3e ple v. "eehankee)

Outside pecuniary interest, relati nship, r previ us participati n in the
matter that calls r adjudicati n, there may be ther causes that c uld
c nceivably er de the trait bjectivity, thus calling r . 9 any such
sh uld make its appearance and pr ve diicult t resist, the better c urse r
a judge is t &
himsel. (ate r. v. aillaluz)
9t is ttimes expedient r necessary in the due and aithul administrati n
justice r the presiding judge t reexamine a itness in rder that his
judgment hen rendered may rest up n a ull and clear understanding the
acts. (3e ple v. anal : hen a judge intervened in the cr ssexaminati n)
%(*/+%&%+
"rial is public hen attendance is pen t all irrespective relati nship t
deendant.
0 hen the evidence presented may be characterized as ensive t
decency r public m rals, the pr ceeding may be limited t riends, relatives
and c unsel. (arcia v. D ming )
"his right serves as a saeguard against any attempt t empl y ur c urt as
instruments persecuti n. "he kn ledge that every criminal trial is subject
t c ntemp rane us revie in the rum public pini n is an eective
restraint n p ssible abuse judicial p er. (arcia v. D ming )
%(
r6
m
.0$%#L$%#
!&..!&
3urp se right t c nr ntati n:

1.m A rd the accused an pp rtunity t test the testim ny
cr ssexaminati n
2.m r the judge t
bserve the dep rtati n the itness.
the itness by
gxcepti n t right c nr ntati n: (1) dying declarati n (2) trial in absentia
O"g: ight t C nr ntati n is n t available in preliminary investigati n.
m Accused is n t entitled as a matter right t be present during the
preliminary examinati n n r t cr ssexamine the itnesses presented
against him be re his arrest
m "his right is available during trial hich nly begins up n arraignment
m there is n right t c nr ntati n against in rmants h aided in the
arrest r in rmants h are n t itnesses

Secti n 7 the Special ules 3r cedure prescribed r Sharias c urts
pr vide that i the plainti has n evidence t pr ve his claim, the deendant
shall take an ath and judgment shall be rendered in his av r by the C urt.
Sh uld deendant reuse t take an ath, plainti can airm his claim under
ath, in hich case judgment shall be rendered in his av r. Said pr visi n
eectively deprives a litigant his right t due pr cess. 9t denies ap arty his
right t c nr nt the itness against him and t cr ssexamine them. 9t
sh uld have n place even in the Special ules 3r cedure in the Shariah
c urts the c untry. ("ampar v. sman)
$,*+ '&
m C mpuls ry pr cess is n t nly t secure the attendance itnesses in
his behal but als t secure the pr ducti n evidence in his behal.
%"! %(
m 3resumpti n is alays against the aiver
m 3r secuti n must pr ve ith str ngly c nvincing evidence that the
accused
and
submitted his c nessi n and

maniested that he as n t interested in having a layer
assist him during the taking that c nessi n. (3e ple v. ara)

r

7

m Writ Habeas C rpus rit directed t the pers n detaining an ther
c mmanding him t pr duce the b dy the pris ner at a designated
time and place, ith the day and cause his capti n and detenti n, t
d , submit t , and receive hatever the c urt r judge aarding the rit
shall c nsider in that behal
1A 2010
m
m
"here must be a deprivati n pers nal liberty t begin ith.

3rivilege the rit habeas c rpus right t have an immediate
determinati n the legality the deprivati n physical liberty.
"he is never suspended, it is the privilege the rit that may be
suspended.

1*% % ! * ,# %#!%"%+(
1.m gxistence Actual invasi n r ebelli n
2.m 3ublic Saety requires the suspensi n
(d es n t c me ith suspensi n Bail)
0m
"he 3resident has the p er t suspend the privilege, subject t the limits
in Article a99, sec. 18
A resp ndent in a petiti n r have the burden t pr ve that
they had indeed released the detainees i their inv king it as their deense. 9
the resp ndents have n t satisied the burden, the case must be reerred t
the CH. (Diz n v. gduard )

- .
- 3

m Speedy trial in Secti n 14 c vers nly the trial phase criminal
cases hereas &%# &" ++ , ! #' >*)%&%+ 1* %.
>*)%&%+)$%#% %",&)%#(
m emedy i there has been unreas nable delay in the res luti n a case:
Dismissal thr ugh mandamus ( que v. Ombudsman)
9n the applicati n the c nstituti nal guaranty the right t speedy
disp siti n cases, particular regard must be taken the acts and
circumstances peculiar t each case. Wellsettled is the rule that the right t a
speedy disp siti n cases, like the right t a speedy trial, is deemed vi lated
nly hen the pr ceeding is attended by vexati us, caprici us, and ppressive
delay. 9n the determinati n hether r n t that right has been vi lated,
the act rs that may be c nsidered and balanced are: the length delay, the
reas ns r such delay, the asserti n r ailure t assert such right by the
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
aived. 9t must there re be asserted. "hus, i there as a delay in the trial
the case, petiti ners are n t entirely ith ut blame.
urtherm re, the right an accused t a speedy trial is guaranteed t him by
the C nstituti n but the same shall n t be utilized t deprive the State a
reas nable pp rtunity airly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights
sh uld n t rk against and preclude the pe ple's equally imp rtant right t
public justice. (uiani v. Sandiganbayan)

? 3
3

3urp se: " prevent perjury and c nessi n under duress.
*#(%# +!.#&%$%#%#
m When is a questi n incriminating?
Mm A crime may c ntain t
r m re elements, a questi n uld be
incriminating i it tends t establish even ne the elements
Mm "estiying t a act hich uld be a necessary link in a chain
evidence t pr ve the c mmissi n the crime
m
ight applies nly t testim nial c mpulsi n, n t bject evidence (aillal r

v. Summers)
m
One may n t be c mpelled t pr duce a sample his riting as evidence

since it is s mething m re than a m ving b dy but als requires
applicati n intelligence and attenti n (Beltran v. Sams n)
D cumentary gvidence:
C mpuls ry pr ducti n private b ks and d cuments
c mpelling him t be a itness against himsel.
the
ner is
"he privilege hich exists as t private papers, cann t be maintained in

relati n t rec rds required by la t be kept in rder that there may be
suitable in rmati n transacti ns hich are the appr priate subjects
g vernmental regulati n and the en rcement
restricti ns validly
established.
"he c ncept speedy disp siti n cases is lexible and is c nsistent ith
#/+ delay. (Caballer v. Al ns , r.)
m
Only natural pers ns are pr tected by this right; juridical entities, like
c rp rati ns, are n t.
"he right t a speedy trial as ell as ther rights c nerred by the C nstituti n
r statute, except hen therise expressly s pr vided by la, may be
m
Stage hen right against sel incriminati n may be asserted: r m the

m ment he is asked t testiy.
r
m
1A 2010
State Witness/ Accused

Criminal Case
Civil Case
Administrative
Case
He may reuse t
take the
itness stand during the trial r
cust dial investigati n.
9 n trial, ne may reuse t
anser
He may n t reuse t take the
itness stand.
He may reuse t
anser
incriminating questi n.
He may reuse t
take the
itness stand i it is criminal in
nature
like
reiture
r
dep rtati n
Ordinary Witness
He may n t reuse
t take the itness
stand.
He may reuse t
anser an
incriminating
questi n
A penal la that pr vides r a higher penalty against the accused h reuses
t testiy r make statements that uld be tantam unt t an admissi n
guilt vi lates the right against selincriminati n. "he accused has a right t
rely n the presumpti n inn cence until pr secuti n pr ves the elements
the crime charged against him. Silence cann t be taken as pr against him.
( S v. avarr )
What is pr hibited by the c nstituti nal guarantee is the use physical r
m ral c mpulsi n t ext rt c mmunicati n r m the itness, n t an inclusi n
his b dy in evide hen it is material. "hus, substance emitting r m the
b dy the deendant can be received as evidence. ( S v. "an "eng; S. vs.
Ong; aillal r v. Summers; S v. Ong SiuH ng)
A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, bl d test, disease test d es n t all
under the pr hibiti n against sel incriminati n.
Writing is n t a purely mechanical act, because it requires the applicati n
intelligence and attenti n, there re, it c nstitutes an evidence against the
accused. gvidence that requires a p sitive intelligent act r m the accused alls
under the right against sel incriminati n. (Beltran v. Sams n; Bermudez v.
Castill )
C mpelling a itnessaccused t take the stand is a vi lati n his right
against sel incriminati n. His testim ny may n t be admissible against him.
(Chavez v. CA, the rd "hunderbird case)
C mpelling the accused in an Antigrat pr ceeding t take the stand r the
pr secuti n against him against his ill is a vi lati n his right against sel
r
m
incriminati n. (Cabal v. Kapunan, r.)

"he right against sel incriminati n extends even t administrative pr ceedings
hich p ssess a criminal r penal aspect. (3ascual r. v. B ard edical
gxaminers)
ight against selincriminati n can
nly be inv ked in penal/criminal
pr ceedings. 9t cann t be inv ked in a Pegislative 9nquiry. (Standard
Chartered v. Senate)

@
89

859
3 7 7
3
3

9nv luntary Servitude every c nditi n en rced r c mpuls ry service
ne t an ther n matter under hat rm such servitude may be
disguised.
0&,%# (1) i such is punishment here the party is c nvicted, (2) in
the interest nati nal deense, citizens may be c mpelled t render
pers nal military r civil service, (3) a return t rk rder, (4)
merchants and marines c mpelled t remain until the end v yage, (5)
a p sse c mitatus a male at a certain age may be validly pressed int
service r the apprehensi n criminals thr ugh legitimate exercise
p lice p er, (6) parental auth rity
G 89 7

3
3 3

3
3
3
3

859 3 3

3

3
0& %"!%#
m A ine is excessive hen it is dispr p rti nate t
1A 2010
the circumstance
the
(1) "he raudulent debt c nstitutes a crime (estaa)

(2) "he debt r has been duly c nvicted
ense
*+()%#(#*$#*#% $#
m ere severity the punishment d es n t make it cruel r unusual. 9t
must be lagrantly and plainly ppressive, h lly dispr p rti nate t the
nature the ense as t sh ck the m ral sense the c mmunity
(3e ple v. gst ista)
m
uides t determine i it is cruel and unusual

1.m 3unishment must n t be s severe as t be degrading t
dignity
2.m 9t must n t be arbitrary
3.m 9t must n t be unacceptable t c ntemp rary s ciety
4.m 9t must n t be excessive
human
Hein us Crime hein us r being griev us, di us, and hateul enses and
hich by reas n their inherent r maniest ickedness, vici usness, atr city
and perversity are repugnant and utrage us t the c mm n standards and
n rms decency and m rality in a just, civilized and rdered s ciety
"he p er the State t imp se the death penalty is implied in secti n 1
Article 3. pers n shall be deprived , liberty, r pr perty ith ut due
pr cess la. Secti n 19 merely pr vides the limit t that plenary p er
the State.
"he c ngress has the p er t rest re the death penalty hich merely
requires that:
(1) the c ngress deine r describe hat is meant by hein us crimes;
(2) that c ngress speciy and penalize by death nly crimes that
qualiy as hein us in acc rdance ith the deiniti n r descripti n set
in the death penalty bill
(3) the c ngress sh uld be singularly m tivated by c mpelling reas n
inv lving hein us crimes. (3e ple v. gchegaray)
3 ll "ax cedula tax r residence tax

55
"he gravamen the ense punished by B3 22 is the act issuing a
rthless check r a check that is dish n red. 9t is n t the n npayment an
bligati n that is penalized. "he thrust the la is t pr hibit, under pain
penal sancti ns, the making rthless checks. (3e ple v. P zan )
5 -

3
3

3

m
nder the irst sentence, ne can be charged r the same act i it
c nstitutes at least t dierent enses under t statutes r t
rdinances. But this d es n apply t c ntinuing crimes

9S" gO3ADY A""ACHgD
1.m d 9ndictment
2.m Be re a c mpetent C urt
3.m Ater arraignment
4.m Ater a valid plea
m
9S" gO3ADY "g9A"gD
"he punishment death by itsel is neither cruel n r unusual. 9t is nly cruel

hen it inv lves lingering death. (3e ple v. gchegaray)

5J 3

3
7

Debt liability t pay m ney gr ing ur c ntract, express r implied
A pers n may nly be impris ned r raudulent debt i:
rm
aerbal dismissal is n t inal until

ritten and signed by a judge
Same gvidence "est hether the
evidence needed r ne case ill
supp rt a c nvicti n in the ther.
m
SgCOD gO3ADY A""ACHgD
1A 2010
Deective c mplaint did n t pace

the accused in irst je pardy
1.m By Acquittal
2.m inal C nvicti n
3.m Dismissal ith ut express
c nsent the accused
4.m Dismissal n the merits
2.m 9dentical
3.m 9n the attempted r
rustrated rm an ther
4.m ecessarily includes
5.m ecessarily included
&$#!-,)'
"he rule against d uble je pardy pr tects the accused n t against the peril
sec nd punishment, but against being again tried r the same ense.
(3e ple v. Ylagan)

1*% % !+%)!# !*/+-,)'
9m irst e pardy must have attached pri r t the 2nd
gvidence seldeense am unts t ithdraal his riginal plea.
A deective c mplaint d es O" attach je pardy up n a grant a
m ti n t quash.
9 the C urt has O jurisdicti n, je pardy shall n t attach.
59m irst e pardy must have "g9A"gD
$%#%#!-,)'
D uble e pardy cann t be inv ked as a deense hen the ther case used as
the basis the irst e pardy has n t been terminated. (Bula ng v. 3e ple)

$%#%# ++/
a.m An ther pr secuti n r the ense charged.
b.m Any attempt t c mmit the same,
c.m Or rustrati n there ,
d.m Or r any
ense hich necessarily includes
r is
necessarily included in the c mplaint/in rmati n.
"an appeal by the pr secuti n r m the Order Dismissal by the
trial c urt shall n t c nstitute D uble e pardy i:
1.m Dismissal is made up n m ti n, r ith the express c nsent the
deendant.
2.m "he dismissal is n t an acquittal based up n c nsiderati n the
evidence r the merits the case.
3.m "he questi n t be passed up n by the appellate c urt is purely legal
s that sh uld the dismissal be und inc rrect, the case uld have
t be remanded t the c urt rigin r urther pr ceedings, in rder
t determine guilt/inn cence the deendant.
te: a verbal dismissal is n t inal until ritten d n and signed by the
udge.
9m "he 2nd e pardy must be r the same ense as that in the irst
rr
m
,,+
udgment Acquittal immediately inal. (decided n merits)
udgment C nvicti n inal hen the peri d r appeal has lapsed
sentence is served r right t appeal is aived r applied r pr bati n
%" ,,+
9 an accused iles t dismiss the case r lack jurisdicti n, it is made via
his n aiver, there re 1st je pardy d es O" attach.
9 there is c nsent t a pr visi nal dismissal by the accused, je pardy d es
n t attach.
rdinary appeal, actinding, certi rari, impeachment,

je pardy in:
legislati n in aid legislati n
*+# *,"#%#(
&
Supervening gvent When the 2nd ense as n t in existence at the time
the irst pr secuti n, r the simple reas n that in such a case there is n
p ssibility r the accused t be c nvicted r an ense that as then
inexistent.
Supervening actWhere ater the irst pr secuti n, a ne act supervenes r
hich the deendant is resp nsible, hich changes the character the
ense, and, t gether ith the acts existing at the time, c nstitutes a ne
and distinct ense, there is n d uble je pardy. " determine d uble
je pardy, it is essential t pr ve the existence b th enses during the
pendency the irst pr secuti n. "he sec nd charge as inexistent in this
case at that time because the victim as still alive. "here as a supervening
act in this case calling r the amendment the in rmati n. (3e ple v. el )
But i reas n r the amendment the charge as already existing during the
irst examinati n but as n t c nsidered in the charge because the
negligence the examiner, then d uble je pardy may attach because there is
n Supervening event. (3e ple v. Buling)
$ !!#
Oenses need n t be the same, but they sh uld c me r m the same act.
hen ne act vi lates t dierent statutes r t dierent pr visi ns
a statute. 9 ne act results in 2 dierent enses, pr secuti n under ne is
n t a bar t pr secuti n under the ther.
A special la pr hibiting the illegal p ssessi n irearms, even i it pr vides
r a higher penalty i the eap n as used in a h micide/murder, d es n t
1A 2010
create a irst je pardy t the pr secuti n r the h micide/murder. D uble

e pardy may nly be inv ked r the same ense r identical enses.
A simple act may be an ense against t dierent pr visi ns la. 9 ne
pr visi n requires pr an additi nal act that is n t included in the ther,
an acquittal r c nvicti n under ne d es n t bar pr secuti n r the ther.
"he accused cann t plead ne as a bar t an ther. ( 3e ple v "i z n)
)%##&#) *
9 an act is punished by la and an rdinance, c nvicti n r acquittal under
either shall c nstitute a bar t an ther pr secuti n r the same act.
(3e ple v. el va)
When the dismissal r terminati n the case is br ught ab ut at the instance
the accused, there is n d uble je pardy.
,,+%)%$,&$#&
gstrada cann t claim that the impeachment pr ceeding as terminated n its
merits and that there as a ailure t pr secute him. By resigning, he
c nsented t the terminati n the impeachment case against him. (gstrada v
Desiert )

55 7

gx 3 st act Pa
(a) ne hich makes an acti n d ne be re the passing the la and
hich as inn cent hen d ne criminal and punishes such acti n,
(b) hich aggravates a crime r makes it greater than hen it as
c mmitted,
(c) hich changes the punishment and inlicts a greater punishment,
(d) hich alters the legal rules evidence and receive less r dierent
testim ny than the la required at the time the c mmissi n the
ense,
(e) assumes t regulate civil rights and remedies nly but in eect
imp ses a penalty r deprivati n a right hich hen d ne as laul,
() deprives a pers n accused a crime s me laul pr tecti n t
hich he has bec me entitled.
O"g: 9t nly pr hibits retr spective penal las (las hich imp se a
penalty r prescribes a burden equivalent t a penalty)
DOgS O" apply t substantive las like the expansi n jurisdicti n
r
m
a certain c urt.
Bill Attainder a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial
trial
glements:
a.m "here must be a la,
b.m Which imp ses a penal burden n a named individual r
easily ascertainable members a gr up,
c.m imp sed directly by the la ith ut judicial trial.
A Pa punishing any pers n h

and by vert acts
ailiates himsel ith, bec mes r remains a member the C mmunist 3arty
r any ther similar subversive rganizati n is n t a Bill Attainder
because it d es n t dispense ith udicial determinati n the guilt the
accused. 9ntent still needs t be pr ven in c urt. (3e ple v. errer)
A bill attainder is a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial
trial. 9ts essence is the substituti n a legislative r a judicial determinati n
guilt.
"he gO is n t a Bill Attainder because it makes it perectly clear that any
judgment guilt in the amassing acquisiti n 'illg tten ealth' is t be
handed d n by a judicial tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (airata v.
Sandiganbayan)
"he retr active applicati n A 8249, hich expands the jurisdicti n the
Sandiganbayan, cann t be c nsidered as an la. 9t is n t a penal
la but a substantive la n jurisdicti n. Only the retr active applicati n a
penal la can be c nsidered as an la. (Pacs n v. gxecutive
Secretary)
6

6

89m 6
3

859m
3 6

89m
- ? G?

3 6

3- L
8-9m 6

m Citizenship pers nal and m re r less permanent membership in a
1A 2010
p litical c mmunity.
des Acquiring Citizenship: 1. us sanguinis n the basis bl d;
2. us s li basis place birth; 3. aturalizati n legal act
ad pting an alien and cl thing him ith the privilege a native b rn. We
ll us sanguinis and naturalizati n.
m Citizenship makes n
distincti n beteen legitimate
r illegitimate
children i lineage is clear ("ecs n v. COgPgC)
m Child b rn under the 1973 r 1987 C nstituti n ilipina m ther and an
alien ather (a) i the m ther is still a citizenship at the time birth, he is
a natural b rn (b) i the m ther has changed citizenship, need t
naturalize
m Kinds aturalizati n la: eneral, Special, ass, eneral la applied
thr ugh c mbinati n administrative pr cess and presidential legislative
pr cess, administrative
Mm 3r cedural requirements: declarati n intenti n, iling
petiti n, hearing and initial judgment, peri d pr bati n,
rehearing and inal judgment
Mm Substantive requirements: b rn r residing in the c untry
since birth, 18 years ab ve, C and believes in the
principles the c nstituti n, must received primary and
sec ndary educati n t a sch l rec gnized by DgCS, must
have kn n trade, business, pr essi n r ccupati n, able
t read, rite, speak ilipin , must have mingled ith
citizens and evinced desire t learn
A natural b rn citizen the 3hilippines h
ns dual citizenship, but n t
( r instance, a natural b rn citizen, h by $ , als
acquires alien citizenship) is deemed t have ren unced his alien citizenship
up n the iling an applicati n r a Certiicate Candidacy. (aalles v.
C melec, ercad v. anzan )
m
"he mere act that a pers n is b rn in a territ ry that ll s the rule 5
d es n t mean that he is n l nger a ilipin citizen. At the m st, it grants
him dual citizenship as l ng as ne his parents is a ilipin . (aalles v.
C melec)
*+%=%#

m aturalizati n may be by a P (Pa best ing citizenship t
an alien), (A 9139),
r by a udicial Act
(C mm nealth Act 473)
m An Applicant r naturalizati n nder CA 473 must the strict requirements
CA 473. He cann t be granted citizenship even i he uld have been
qualiied under A 9139 (S v. epublic)

r
m
aturalizati n las sh uld be rigidly en rced and c nstrued strictly in av r
the g vernment and against the applicant.
aturalizati n requires b th substantial and pr cedural c mpliance (Ong Chia
v epublic)
9n naturalizati n pr ceedings, it is the burden the applicant t pr ve n t
nly his n g d m ral character but als the g d m ral character
his/her itnesses, h must be credible pers ns. (S v. epublic)
A naturalizati n pr ceeding is n t a judicial adversary pr ceeding, and the
decisi n rendered therein d es n t c nstitute res judicata. A certiicate
naturalizati n may be cancelled i it is subsequently disc vered that the
applicant btained it by misleading the c urt up n any material act. (S v.
epublic)
"he d ctrine $ d es n t apply t citizenship. (Pab v C melec)
9n rder r $ t apply, there must be:
1.m a pers n's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
c ntr versy here said pers n is a party;
2.m the S licit r eneral r his auth rized representative t k active
part in the res luti n there , and;
3.m the inding r citizenship is airmed by this C urt.
(atchalian v. B ard C mmissi ners)
%+%%#
."he child a ilipin ather and an alien m ther is a ilipin as
l ng as paternity is clear because $ . "here is n distincti n
beteen legitimate and illegitimate children. ("ecs n v COgPgC)
5 6 6

3
3

6
6
89 3

A Child b rn be re an 17, 1973 t an alien ather and a ilipin m ther d es
n t have t elect 3hilippine Citizenship i his ather has bec me a naturalized
ilipin citizen be re he c uld reach the age maj rity. He cann t elect
an ther citizenship because his ather as already a ilipin citizen.
He is deemed t be a natural b rn citizen by virtue the curative nature
Secti n 2 because his m ther is a ilipina, and he d es n t have t per rm
any acts t perect his ilipin citizenship.
1A 2010
Citizenship is an indispensible requirement r h lding elective

v C melec, 1996)
(C v Hg")
9n ,%%#, hich is the relevant m de in this case, the rec very and
rest rati n the riginal nati nality ccurs. A natural b rn citizen h l ses
his citizenship, then applies r repatriati n is deemed t be a natural b rn
citizen. "his is in spite the pr visi n Secti n 2. (Bengs n v Hg")

6 3
3

m aturalizati n las all cancellati n certiicate i it is und t have
btained raudulently r illegally r that he vi lated c nditi ns p sed n
him. "his must be pr ven in a clear, unequiv cal and c nvincing evidence
m H may citizenship be reacquired: aturalizati n, Direct act C ngress
and epatriati n
m P ss Citizenship
Mm aturalizati n
Mm gxpress renunciati n
Mm Subscribing ath allegiance t a reign c untry
Mm Serving in the armed rces an enemy c untry
Mm Being a deserter the A3
m epatriati n rec very riginal citizenship.
Mm Deserti n the armed rces
Mm Service in the armed rced the allied rces during the
W rld War 99
Mm Service in the armed rces the S at any ther time
Mm arriage a ilipin man t an alien
Mm 3 litical and ec n mic necessity
A naturalized ilipin h c ntinues t declare 3 rtugese citizenship in
c mmercial d cuments and subsequently btains a 3 rtugese passp rt is
deemed t have expressly ren unced his 3hilippine citizenship by c ntinuing
t represent himsel as an alien. His acts are gr ssly inc nsistent ith
naturalizati n. (Yu v. Deens rSantiag )
A ilipin h naturalizes as an Australian, ren uncing his ilipin citizenship
in the pr cess, cann t validly claim that he is still a ilipin citizen because his
acquisiti n Australian citizenship as impr per. He has already validly
ren unced his ilipin citizenship, and the validity his naturalizati n is
beteen him and Australia. ntil he takes the steps necessary t validly
reacquire 3hilippine citizenship, he is disqualiied r m running r ice. (Pab
r. v C melec, 1989)
r
m
ice. (Pab
r
A ilipin h claims that he as naturalized as an American citizen in rder

t pr tect himsel r m the arc s regime is disqualiied r m running r
ice. any ilipin s are similarly situated in the States but did n t ind it
necessary t aband n ilipin citizenship. He may validly reacquire his
citizenship thr ugh repatriati n t qualiy himsel r ice. (rivald v.
C melec, 1989)
r elective icials, citizenship is required at the time he is pr claimed t
ice and at the start his term. epatriati n retr actively applies t the
date applicati n. (rivald v C melec, 1996)
- 6
3

6
3 3

r
6 3

m Pa has all ed dual citizenship
m Dual citizenship is n t dual allegiance
m Derivative aturalizati n= citizenship derived r m that an ther as
r m a pers n h h lds citizenship by virtue naturalizati n
A atural b rn ilipin h acquires alien citizenship by naturalizati n, then
subsequently applies r repatriati n in rder t retain/reacquire his ilipin
citizenship is c nsidered t all under the term dual allegiance. (ac t v. Dal)
"he rule in ercad v. anzan and aalles v. C melec is inapplicable here a
ilipin
citizen acquires reign citizenship thr ugh naturalizati n, then
subsequently repatriates under A 9225. He is n t c nsidered t have
ren unced his allegiance t the reign c untry up n his iling a COC. He
must irst take an ath expressly ren uncing his reign allegiance be re he
may be qualiied t ile r candidacy. (ac t v. Dal)
Dual allegiance is dierent r m dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises hen,
as a result the c ncurrent applicati n the dierent las t
r m re
states, a pers n is simultane usly c nsidered a nati nal by the said states
(e.g. jus s li, jus sanguinis) Dual allegiance reers t the situati n in hich a
pers n simultane usly es, by s me p sitive act, l yalty t t
r m re
states. 9t is the result an individuals v liti n. (ercad v. anzan )
1A 2010
A Dual Citizen h repatriates under A 9225 is deemed t implicitly ren unce

his allegiance t the reign c untry. (AASSCalilung v Datuman ng)
because the turbulent p litical climate cann t be c nsidered t have

aband ned his d micile. His departure cann t be c nsidered v luntary and
ith ut evidence his intenti n t aband n the ld d micile, he cann t be
presumed t have ad pted a ne ne. ( mualdez v. "C)

m

3 7 6

7 3
33
3 3
7

m Surage right t v te in electi n
m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld
d micile
m t qualiy t
v te: th se sentence by inal judgment t
suer
impris nment n t less than ne year but shall aut matically reacquire
the right up n expirati n ive years ater service sentence, any
pers n adjudged by inal c nvicti n vi lating his allegiance, insane r
eebleminded pers ns.
" be sure, the right surage is n t at all abs lute. eedless t say, the
exercise the right surage, as in the enj yment all ther rights, is
subject t existing substantive and pr cedural requirements emb died in ur
C nstituti n, statute b ks and ther rep sit ries la. As t the pr cedural
limitati n, the right a citizen t v te is necessarily c nditi ned up n certain
pr cedural requirements he must underg : am ng thers, the pr cess
registrati n.
3r ceeding r m the signiicance registrati n as a necessary requisite t the
right t v te, the State, in the exercise its inherent p lice p er, may then
enact las t saeguard and regulate the act v ters registrati n r the
ultimate purp se c nducting h nest, rderly and peaceul electi n, t the
incidental yet generally imp rtant end, that even preelecti n activities c uld
be per rmed by the duly c nstituted auth rities in a realistic and rderly
manner. (Akbayan v. C melec; the C urt deending C melecs ban r
registrati n 120 days be re the electi n)
A pers n h
let the c untry t
r
m
seek asylum abr ad
ut
ear r his saety
Acquisiti n a ne d micile requires

and
6
1.m esidence, b dily presence in ne l cality
2.m 9 t remain in the ne l cality
3.m 9 t

5 3

3

7
33
3 3

m Absentee v ting all ed under A 9189
nder A 9189, a ilipin immigrant h has been absent r 3 years is
presumed t have aband ned his residence. H ever, he may execute an
aidavit his intenti n t return. "his serves as implicit pr that he has n t
aband ned his d micile, and is there re d es n t vi late the residency
requirement Secti n 1. (acalintal v. C melec)
Dual Citizens under A 9225 are all ed t v te thr ugh the Overseas
Absentee v ter la, ith ut the need r residency. Secti n 2 Auth rizes
absentee v ting and pr vides an exempti n r m the residency requirement.
(ic lasPeis v. C melec)

7 - 3
&%# "he C ngress shall give highest pri rity t the enactment
measures that pr tect and enhance the right all the pe ple t human
dignity, reduce s cial, ec n mic, and p litical inequalities, and rem ve cultural
inequities by equitably diusing ealth and p litical p er r the c mm n
g d. " this end, the State shall regulate the acquisiti n, nership, use, and
disp siti n pr perty and its increments.
"he C nstituti n speciically pr vides that lab r is entitled t "humane
c nditi ns rk. 9t als directs the State t pr m te "equality
1A 2010
empl yment pp rtunities r all." Similarly, the Pab r C de pr vides that the
State shall "ensure equal rk pp rtunities regardless sex, race r creed."
9t uld be an ar nt t b th the spirit and letter these pr visi ns the
State, i in spite its prim rdial bligati n t pr m te and ensure equal
empl yment pp rtunities, it cl ses its eyes t unequal and discriminat ry
terms and c nditi ns empl yment. (9nternati nal Sch l Alliance
gducat rs v. Quisumbing)
m
" principal activities state is c mmanded t attend t achieve s cial

justice (1) creati n m re ec n mic pp rtunities and m re ealth
(2)cl ser regulati n the acquisiti n, nership, use and disp siti n
pr perty t achieve m re equitable distributi n r ealth and p er
m
m
" acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld
d micile
&%# 5 "he pr m ti n s cial justice shall include the c mmitment t
create ec n mic pp rtunities based n reed m initiative and selreliance.

&%# "he State shall a rd ull pr tecti n t lab r, l cal and verseas,
rganized and un rganized, and pr m te ull empl yment and equality
empl yment pp rtunities r all.
9t shall guarantee the rights all rkers t sel rganizati n, c llective
bargaining and neg tiati ns, and peaceul c ncerted activities, including the
right t strike in acc rdance ith la. "hey shall be entitled t security
tenure, humane c nditi ns rk, and a living age. "hey shall als
participate in p licy and decisi nmaking pr cesses aecting their rights and
beneits as may be pr vided by la.
"he State shall pr m te the principle shared resp nsibility beteen rkers
and empl yers and the preerential use v luntary m des in settling
disputes, including c nciliati n, and shall en rce their mutual c mpliance
thereith t ster industrial peace.
"he State shall regulate the relati ns beteen rkers and empl yers,
rec gnizing the right lab r t its just share in the ruits pr ducti n and
the right
enterprises t
reas nable returns t
investments, and t
expansi n and gr th.

3
&%# - "he State shall, by la, undertake an agrarian re rm pr gram
unded n the right armers and regular arm rkers h are landless, t
n directly r c llectively the lands they till r, in the case ther arm
rkers, t receive a just share the ruits there . " this end, the State
shall enc urage and undertake the just distributi n all agricultural lands,
subject t such pri rities and reas nable retenti n limits as the C ngress may
prescribe, taking int
acc unt ec l gical, devel pmental,
r equity

m
c nsiderati ns, and subject t

the payment
just c mpensati n. 9n
determining retenti n limits, the State shall respect the right small
land ners. "he State shall urther pr vide incentives r v luntary land
sharing.
+%&!$%##$%#< " the extent that the
measures under challenge merely prescribe retenti n limits r land ners,
there is an exercise the p lice p er r the regulati n private pr perty
in acc rdance ith the C nstituti n. But here, t carry ut such regulati n it
bec mes necessary t deprive such ners hatever lands they may n
in excess the maximum area all ed, there is deinitely a taking under the
p er eminent d main r hich payment just c mpensati n is
imperative.
"he taking c ntemplated is n t a mere limitati n the use the land. What
it requires is the surrender the title t and the physical p ssessi n the
said excess and all beneicial rights accruing t the ner in av r the
armerbeneiciary.
2%#(%*-* $,# %#< 3D 27 expressly rdered that n
title t the land ned as t be actually issued t the recipient armer
unless and until he had bec me a ullledged member a duly rec gnized
armers c perative. 9t as underst d, h ever, that ull payment the
just c mpensati n als had t be made irst, c n rmably t the c nstituti nal
requirement.
"he CA3 Pa, r its part, c nditi ns the transer p ssessi n and
nership the land t the g vernment n receipt by the land ner the
c rresp nding payment r the dep sit by the DA the c mpensati n in cash
r PB3 b nds ith an accessible bank. ntil then, title als remains ith the
land ner.
)$%#%#!-* $,# %#,"%))!/'+"+%)<
Secti n 16(d), hich pr vides that in case the rejecti n r disregard by
the ner the er the g vernment t buy his land
... the DA shall c nduct summary administrative pr ceedings t determine
the c mpensati n r the land
Alth ugh the pr ceedings are described as summary, the land ner and ther
interested parties are nevertheless all ed an pp rtunity t submit evidence
n the real value the pr perty. But m re imp rtantly, the determinati n
the just c mpensati n by the DA is n t by any means inal and c nclusive,
the C urts ustice still have a right t revie the determinati n ith inality.
"+*%#'0,,%%#."he traditi nal medium r the payment
1A 2010
m
&%# ? "he State shall pr tect the rights subsistence ishermen,
especially l cal c mmunities, t the preerential use the c mmunal
marine and ishing res urces, b th inland and sh re. 9t shall pr vide
supp rt t such ishermen thr ugh appr priate techn l gy and research,
adequate inancial, pr ducti n, and marketing assistance, and ther services.
"he State shall als pr tect, devel p, and c nserve such res urces. "he
pr tecti n shall extend t
sh re ishing gr unds subsistence ishermen
against reign intrusi n. ish rkers shall receive a just share r m their
lab r in the utilizati n marine and ishing res urces.
&%# @ "he State shall pr vide incentives t land ners t invest the
pr ceeds
the agrarian re rm pr gram t
pr m te industrializati n,
empl yment creati n, and privatizati n public sect r enterprises. inancial
instruments used as payment r their lands shall be h n red as equity in
enterprises their ch ice.
m "here sh uld be mutual beneicial relati nship beteen industrializati n
and agrarian re rm. Agrarian re rm must unl ck the idle ealth hidden
in the land and industrializati n uld pr vide r impr vement
&%# r "he State shall rec gnize the right armers, arm rkers, and
land ners, as ell as c peratives, and
ther independent armers'
rganizati ns t participate in the planning, rganizati n, and management
the pr gram, and shall pr vide supp rt t agriculture thr ugh appr priate
techn l gy and research, and adequate inancial, pr ducti n, marketing, and
ther supp rt services.
&%# "he State shall apply the principles agrarian re rm r
steardship, henever applicable in acc rdance ith la, in the disp siti n r
utilizati n ther natural res urces, including lands the public d main
under lease r c ncessi n suitable t agriculture, subject t pri r rights,
h mestead rights small settlers, and the rights indigen us c mmunities
t their ancestral lands. "he State may resettle landless armers and
arm rkers in its n agricultural estates hich shall be distributed t them
in the manner pr vided by la.

3
&%# G "he State shall, by la, and r the c mm n g d, undertake, in
c perati n ith the private sect r, a c ntinuing pr gram urban land
re rm and h using hich ill make available at a rdable c st, decent
h using and basic services t underprivileged and h meless citizens in urban
centers and resettlement areas. 9t shall als pr m te adequate empl yment
pp rtunities t such citizens. 9n the implementati n such pr gram the
State shall respect the rights small pr perty ners.
m gvicti n must be d ne in acc rdance ith la that is ith dye pr cess.
Due pr cesses n t necessarily judicial pr cess. 9t can als
be
administrative
m gvicti n and dem liti n the pers n must be acc rded due pr cess r an
pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her ccupati n r
p ssessi n inv lved is unlaul r against the ill the ner
&%# J rban r rural p r dellers shall n t be evicted n r their
delling dem lished, except in acc rdance ith la and in a just and humane
manner. resettlement urban r rural dellers shall be undertaken
ith ut adequate c nsultati n ith them and the c mmunities here they are
t be rel cated.
3##!"%&%#.What is meant by "in acc rdance ith la" and "just
and humane manner" is that the pers n t be evicted be acc rded due
pr cess r an pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her
ccupati n r p ssessi n the pr perty inv lved is unlaul r against the
ill the land ner; that sh uld the illegal r unlaul ccupati n be pr ven,
the ccupant be suiciently n tiied be re actual evicti n r dem liti n is
d ne; and that there be n l ss lives, physical injuries r unnecessary l ss
just c mpensati n is m ney and n

ther. H ever, e d n t deal here ith
the traditi nal excercise the p er eminent d main. "his is a
"+*%#'2%#)!0,,%%#hich aects all private agricultural
lands henever und and hatever kind as l ng as they are in excess
the maximum retenti n limits all ed their ners. "his kind expr priati n
is intended r the beneit n t nly a particular c mmunity r a small
segment the p pulati n but the entire ilipin nati n.
"he pr p rti n cash payment t the ther things value c nstituting the
t tal payment, as determined n the basis the areas the lands
expr priated, is n t unduly ppressive up n the land ner. 9t is n ted that
the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney, primarily because the
small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big land ners, h can
a rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things value.
(Ass ciati n Small Pand ners v. Secretary Agrarian e rm)
"his pr visi n aims at eicient pr ducti n, and m re equitable distributi n
land, rec gnizing the right th se h are landless t
n the land
they till and a just share the ruits the land.
m edistributi n land is t be achieved thr ugh v luntary sale r
expr priati n and resale.
Pivest ck r p ultry raising is n t similar t cr p r tree arming. Pand is n t
the primary res urce in this undertaking. "he use land is incidental t , but
n t the principal act r r c nsiderati n in pr ductivity in this industry. "he
transcripts the deliberati ns the c nstituti nal c mmissi n 1986 n the
meaning the rd agricultural clearly sh that it as never the intenti n
the ramers the c nstituti n t include livest ck and p ultry industry in
the c verage the c nstituti nallymandated agrarian re rm pr gram the
g vt. (Puz arms v. Sec. Agrarian e rm)
6
m
1A 2010
r damage t pr perties. (3e ple v. Peach n)

&%#"he State shall ad pt an integrated and c mprehensive appr ach
t health devel pment hich shall endeav r t make essential g ds, health
and ther s cial services available t all the pe ple at a rdable c st. "here
shall be pri rity r the needs the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled,
men, and children. "he State shall endeav r t pr vide ree medical care t
paupers.
&%#5 "he State shall establish and maintain an eective d and drug
regulat ry system and undertake appr priate health, manp er devel pment,
and research, resp nsive t the c untry's health needs and pr blems.
&%# "he State shall establish a special agency r disabled pers n r
their rehabilitati n, seldevel pment, and selreliance, and their integrati n
int the mainstream s ciety.
3
&%# - "he State shall pr tect rking men by pr viding sae and
healthul rking c nditi ns, taking int acc unt their maternal uncti ns, and
such acilities and pp rtunities that ill enhance their elare and enable
them t realize their ull p tential in the service the nati n.

C 6
&%# r "he State shall respect the r le independent pe ple's
rganizati ns t
enable the pe ple t
pursue and pr tect, ithin the
dem cratic rame rk, their legitimate and c llective interests and aspirati ns
thr ugh peaceul and laul means.
3e ple's rganizati ns are b na ide ass ciati ns citizens ith dem nstrated
capacity t pr m te the public interest and ith identiiable leadership,
membership, and structure.
&%# "he right the pe ple and their rganizati ns t eective and
reas nable participati n at all levels s cial, p litical, and ec n mic decisi n
making shall n t be abridged. "he State shall, by la, acilitate the
establishment adequate c nsultati n mechanisms.
3
&%#?
1.m "here is hereby created an independent ice called the C mmissi n
n Human ights.
2.m "he C mmissi n shall be c mp sed a Chairman and ur embers
h must be naturalb rn citizens the 3hilippines and a maj rity
h m shall be members the Bar. "he term ice and ther
qualiicati ns and disabilities the embers the C mmissi n shall
be pr vided by la.
3.m
ntil this C mmissi n is c nstituted, the existing 3residential
C mmittee n Human ights shall c ntinue t exercise its present
uncti ns and p ers.
4.m "he appr ved annual appr priati ns the C mmissi n shall be
aut matically and regularly released.
&%#@"he C mmissi n n Human ights shall have the ll ing
p ers and uncti ns:
1.m 9nvestigate, n its n r n c mplaint by any party, all rms
human rights vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights;
2.m Ad pt its perati nal guidelines and rules pr cedure, and cite r
c ntempt r vi lati ns there in acc rdance ith the ules C urt;
3.m 3r vide appr priate legal measures r the pr tecti n human rights
all pers ns ithin the 3hilippines, as ell as ilipin s residing
abr ad, and pr vide r preventive measures and legal aid services t
the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need
pr tecti n;
4.m gxercise visit rial p ers ver jails, pris ns, r detenti n acilities;
5.m gstablish a c ntinuing pr gram
research, educati n, and
in rmati n t enhance respect r the primacy human rights;
6.m ec mmend t C ngress eective measures t pr m te human rights
and t pr vide r c mpensati n t victims vi lati ns human
rights, r their amilies;
7.m nit r the 3hilippine vernment's c mpliance ith internati nal
treaty bligati ns n human rights;
8.m rant immunity r m pr secuti n t any pers n h se testim ny r
h se p ssessi n d cuments r ther evidence is necessary r
c nvenient t determine the truth in any investigati n c nducted by
it r under its auth rity;
9.m equest the assistance any department, bureau, ice, r agency
in the per rmance its uncti ns;
10.m App int its icers and empl yees in acc rdance ith la; and
11.m 3er rm such ther duties and uncti ns as may be pr vided by la.
"he C nstituti n did n t intend the CH t be an ther c urt r quasijudicial
agency. "he m st that may be c nceded t it is that it may (i.e.,
receive evidence and make indings act as regards claimed human rights
vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights. But actinding is n t adjudicati n
and cann t be likened t the judicial uncti n a c urt justice, r even a
quasijudicial agency r icial. "he uncti n receiving evidence and
ascertaining therer m acts a c ntr versy is n t a judicial uncti n,
pr perly speaking.
" be c nsidered as such, it must be acc mpanied by the auth rity applying
the la t th se actual c nclusi ns t the end that the c ntr versy may be
decided r determined auth ritatively, inally and deinitively, subject t
appeals r m des revie as may be pr vided by la. *
0 (Carin v. C mmissi n n Human ights)
"#%" $ * #) +(+ %) "%& . "he c nstituti nal pr visi n
directing the CH t "pr vide r preventive measures and legal aid services
1A 2010
t the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need

pr tecti n" may n t be c nstrued t c ner jurisdicti n n the C mmissi n t
issue a restraining rder r rit injuncti n r, i that ere the intenti n,
the C nstituti n uld have expressly said s . "urisdicti n is c nerred nly
by the C nstituti n r by la.
"preventive measures and legal aid services" menti ned in the C nstituti n
reer t extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary rit
injuncti n) hich the CH may seek r m the pr per c urts n behal the
victims human rights vi lati ns. t being a c urt justice, the CH itsel
has n jurisdicti n t issue the rit, r a rit preliminary injuncti n may
nly be issued "by the judge any c urt in hich the acti n is pending
[ithin his district], r by a ustice the C urt Appeals, r the Supreme
C urt. (g3ZA v. CH)
"(!:*$# %( ;.During the deliberati ns the C nstituti nal
C mmissi n, the C mmissi ners agreed that the term human rights in ur
C nstituti n uld c ver nly civil and p litical rights in rder t make the
CH m re eective. One c mmissi ner als emphasized six areas here the
CH c uld act eectively:
a.m pr tecti n rights p litical detainees
b.m treatment pris ners and the preventi n t rtures
c.m air and public trials
d.m cases disappearances
e.m salvagings and hamletting
.m
ther crimes c mmitted against the religi us
#$, ! . "he p er t cite r c ntempt sh uld be
underst d t apply nly t vi lati ns its ad pted perati nal guidelines
and rules pr cedure essential t carry ut its investigat rial p ers. "he
p er t cite r c ntempt c uld be exercised against pers ns h reuse t
c perate ith the said b dy, r h unduly ithh ld relevant in rmati n, r
h decline t h n r summ ns, and the like, in pursuing its investigative
rk. (Sim n r. v. CH)
&%#G "he C ngress may pr vide r ther cases vi lati ns human
rights that sh uld all ithin the auth rity the C mmissi n, taking int
acc unt its rec mmendati ns.
m "he p er he c mmissi n is nly investigative. 9t d es n t have
pr secut rial p ers. 9t must rely n the executive departments. 9t
cann t issue rits r injuncti n
m "he c mmissi n can nly pr tect civil and p litical rights and n t s ci
ec n mic rights

7

m

&%# "he State shall pr tect and pr m te the right all citizens t
quality educati n at all levels, and shall take appr priate steps t make such
educati n accessible t all.
m Characteristic gducati nal System (1) quality educati n (2) a rdable
(3) relevant t the needs the pe ple and s ciety
m ight t quality educati n is n t abs lute but subject t air, reas nable
and equitable admissi n and academic requirement
m eneral ule: sch ls may n t take disciplinary acti ns r act c mmitted
utside campus unless (1) i it is a sch l sp ns red activities r (2) the
misc nduct aects the students status r the g d name r reputati n
the sch l
%#+3)%&+)$% %# .9t is the right and indeed the
resp nsibility the State t insure that the medical pr essi n is n t
iniltrated by inc mpetents t h m patients may unarily entrust their lives
and health.
"he threelunk rule is a valid exercise
p lice p er. *
upheld the c nstituti nality the A" as a measure intended t
limit the admissi n t medical sch ls nly t th se h have initially pr ved
their c mpetence and preparati n r a medical educati n.
"he right t quality educati n inv ked by the private resp ndent is #
/ +* "he C nstituti n als pr vides that "every citizen has the right t
ch se a pr essi n r c urse study, subject t air, reas nable and
equitable admissi n and academic requirements. (DgCS v. San Dieg )
&%#5"he State shall:
1.m gstablish, maintain, and supp rt a c mplete, adequate, and
integrated system educati n relevant t the needs the pe ple
and s ciety;
2.m gstablish and maintain, a system ree public educati n in the
elementary and high sch l levels. With ut limiting the natural rights
parents t rear their children, elementary educati n is c mpuls ry
r all children sch l age;
3.m gstablish and maintain a system sch larship grants, student l an
pr grams, subsidies, and ther incentives hich shall be available t
deserving students in b th public and private sch ls, especially t
the underprivileged;
4.m gnc urage n n rmal, in rmal, and indigen us learning systems, as
ell as sellearning, independent, and ut sch l study pr grams
particularly th se that resp nd t c mmunity needs; and
5.m 3r vide adult citizens, the disabled, and ut sch l y uth ith
training in civics, v cati nal eiciency, and ther skills.
&%#
1A 2010
1.m All educati nal instituti ns shall include the study the C nstituti n
as part the curricula.
2.m "hey shall inculcate patri tism and nati nalism, ster l ve

humanity, respect r human rights, appreciati n the r le
nati nal her es in the hist rical devel pment the c untry, teach
the rights and duties citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual
values, devel p m ral character and pers nal discipline, enc urage
critical and creative thinking, br aden scientiic and techn l gical
kn ledge, and pr m te v cati nal eiciency.
3.m At the pti n expressed in riting by the parents r guardians,
religi n shall be all ed t be taught t their children r ards in
public elementary and high sch ls ithin the regular class h urs by
instruct rs designated r appr ved by the religi us auth rities the
religi n t hich the children r ards bel ng, ith ut additi nal c st
t the vernment.
&%#-
1.m "he State rec gnizes the c mplementary r les public and private
instituti ns in the educati nal system and shall exercise reas nable
supervisi n and regulati n all educati nal instituti ns.
2.m gducati nal instituti ns, ther than th se established by religi us
gr ups and missi n b ards, shall be ned s lely by citizens the
3hilippines r c rp rati ns r ass ciati ns at least sixty per centum
the capital hich is ned by such citizens. "he C ngress may,
h ever, require increased ilipin
equity participati n in all
educati nal instituti ns. "he c ntr l and administrati n educati nal
instituti ns shall be vested in citizens
the 3hilippines.
educati nal instituti n shall be established exclusively r aliens
and n gr up aliens shall c mprise m re than nethird the
enr llment in any sch l. "he pr visi ns this sub secti n shall n t
apply t sch ls established r reign dipl matic pers nnel and their
dependents and, unless therise pr vided by la, r ther reign
temp rary residents.
3.m All revenues and assets
n nst ck, n npr it educati nal
instituti ns used actually, directly, and exclusively r educati nal
purp ses shall be exempt r m taxes and duties. p n the diss luti n
r cessati n the c rp rate existence such instituti ns, their
assets shall be disp sed
in the manner pr vided by la.
3r prietary educati nal instituti ns, including th se c peratively
ned, may likeise be entitled t such exempti ns, subject t the
limitati ns pr vided by la, including restricti ns n dividends and
pr visi ns r reinvestment.
m
m
4.m Subject t c nditi ns prescribed by la, all grants, end ments,

d nati ns, r c ntributi ns used actually, directly, and exclusively r
educati nal purp ses shall be exempt r m tax.
ilipinize (1) nership, (2) c ntr l and administrati n and (3) student
p pulati n
Pevel president, dean, principal, r member the b ard trustees are
ilipinized.
&%#r
1.m the State shall take int acc unt regi nal and sect ral needs and
c nditi ns and shall enc urage l cal planning in the devel pment
educati nal p licies and pr grams.
2.m Academic reed m shall be enj yed in all instituti ns higher
learning.
3.m gvery citizen has a right t select a pr essi n r c urse study,
subject t air, reas nable, and equitable admissi n and academic
requirements.
4.m "he State shall enhance the right
teachers t
pr essi nal
advancement. nteaching academic and n nacademic pers nnel
shall enj y the pr tecti n the State.
5.m "he State shall assign the highest budgetary pri rity t educati n and
ensure that teaching ill attract and retain its rightul share the
best available talents thr ugh adequate remunerati n and ther
means j b satisacti n and ulillment.
"he #%+!)$ include:
a.m Wh may teach
b.m What may be taught
c.m H it shall be taught
d.m Wh may be admitted t study (includes h may be
expelled r h may n t be admitted)
"he right the sch l t discipline is included in the third and urth reed m.
9t is n t nly a right the instituti n, but a duty t devel p discipline in its
students.
"he p er the sch l t investigate is an adjunct its p er t suspend r
expel. 9t is a necessary c r llary t the en rcement rules and regulati ns
and the maintenance a sae and rderly educati nal envir nment c nducive
t learning. (iriam C llege v. CA)
Academic reed m instituti ns higher learning is rec gnized by the
C nstituti n. "he sch l decides r itsel its aims and bjectives and h best
t attain them. 9t is ree r m utside c erci n r intererence save p ssibly
hen the verriding public elare calls r s me restraint. 9t has a ide
sphere aut n my certainly extending t the ch ice students.
"he internal c nditi ns r academic reed m in a university are that the
academic sta sh uld have de act c ntr l the ll ing uncti ns: (i) the
1A 2010
admissi n and examinati n students; (ii) the curricula r c urses study;

(iii) the app intment and tenure ice academic sta; and (iv) the
all cati n inc me am ng the dierent categ ries expenditure. (arcia v.
aculty Admissi n)
Sch ls teaming(sic) are given ample discreti n t rmulate rules and
guidelines in the granting h n rs r purp ses graduati n. "his is part
academic reed m. Within the parameters these rules, it is ithin the
c mpetence universities and c lleges t determine h are entitled t the
grant h n rs am ng the graduating students. 9ts discreti n n this
academic matter may n t be disturbed much less c ntr lled by the c urts
unless there is grave abuse discreti n in its exercise. ( niversity San
Carl s v. CA)

&%# "he nati nal language the 3hilippines is ilipin . As it ev lves, it
shall be urther devel ped and enriched n the basis existing 3hilippine and
ther languages. Subject t pr visi ns la and as the C ngress may deem
appr priate, the vernment shall take steps t initiate and sustain the use
ilipin as a medium icial c mmunicati n and as language instructi n
in the educati nal system.
&%# ? r purp ses c mmunicati n and instructi n, the icial
languages the 3hilippines are ilipin and, until therise pr vided by la,
gnglish. "he regi nal languages are the auxiliary icial languages in the
regi ns and shall serve as auxiliary media instructi n therein. Spanish and
Arabic shall be pr m ted n a v luntary and pti nal basis.
m ilipin is a language c nsisting a usi n the vari us 3hilippine
languages.
m Oicial Panguage: ilipin and gnglish and Spanish
&%# @ "his C nstituti n shall be pr mulgated in ilipin and gnglish and
shall be translated int maj r regi nal languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
&%# G "he C ngress shall establish a nati nal language c mmissi n
c mp sed representatives vari us regi ns and disciplines hich shall
undertake, c rdinate, and pr m te researches r the devel pment,
pr pagati n, and preservati n ilipin and ther languages.

&%# J Science and techn l gy are essential r nati nal devel pment
and pr gress. "he State shall give pri rity t research and devel pment,
inventi n, inn vati n, and their utilizati n; and t science and techn l gy
educati n, training, and services. 9t shall supp rt indigen us, appr priate, and
selreliant scientiic and techn l gical capabilities, and their applicati n t the
c untry's pr ductive systems and nati nal lie.
&%# "he C ngress may pr vide r incentives, including tax
deducti ns, t enc urage private participati n in pr grams basic and
applied scientiic research. Sch larships, grantsinaid, r ther rms
r
m
incentives shall be pr vided t deserving science students, researchers,

scientists, invent rs, techn l gists, and specially gited citizens.
&%#5 "he State shall regulate the transer and pr m te the adaptati n
techn l gy r m all s urces r the nati nal beneit. 9t shall enc urage the
idest participati n private gr ups, l cal g vernments, and c mmunity
based
rganizati ns in the generati n and utilizati n
science and
techn l gy.
&%# "he State shall pr tect and secure the exclusive rights
scientists, invent rs, artists, and ther gited citizens t their intellectual
pr perty and creati ns, particularly hen beneicial t the pe ple, r such
peri d as may be pr vided by la.

&%#- "he State shall ster the preservati n, enrichment, and dynamic
ev luti n a ilipin nati nal culture based n the principle unity in
diversity in a climate
ree artistic and intellectual expressi n.
Secti n 15. Arts and letters shall enj y the patr nage the State. "he State
shall c nserve, pr m te, and p pularize the nati n's hist rical and cultural
heritage and res urces, as ell as artistic creati ns.
&%# All the c untry's artistic and hist ric ealth c nstitutes the
cultural treasure the nati n and shall be under the pr tecti n the State
hich may regulate its disp siti n.
&%# ? "he State shall rec gnize, respect, and pr tect the rights
indigen us cultural c mmunities t preserve and devel p their cultures,
traditi ns, and instituti ns. 9t shall c nsider these rights in the rmulati n
nati nal plans and p licies.
&%#@
1.m "he State shall ensure equal access t cultural pp rtunities thr ugh
the educati nal system, public
r private cultural entities,
sch larships, grants and ther incentives, and c mmunity cultural
centers, and ther public venues.
2.m "he State shall enc urage and supp rt researches and studies n the
arts and culture.

&%#G
1.m "he State shall pr m te physical educati n and enc urage sp rts
pr grams, league c mpetiti ns, and amateur sp rts, including
training r internati nal c mpetiti ns, t
ster seldiscipline,
team rk, and excellence r the devel pment a healthy and alert
citizenry.
2.m All educati nal instituti ns shall undertake regular sp rts activities
thr ugh ut the c untry in c perati n ith athletic clubs and ther
sect rs.

1A 2010

Sandy Crab Consti 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandy Crab Consti 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

m

Sh uld be mere regulati n n t pr hibiti n a pr essi n r calling that is

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

 %&' ! %(  3rimacy Human ights

ver 3r perty ights

parties can kn the vari us issues and the  # r decisi n.

vernment b dies have 2 p ers:

"#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n

gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic reed m:

. Dep rtati n 3r ceedings eect is 3enal in character, s there must be due

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser r

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Pegislature, may n t, under the guise pr tecting public interest, arbitrarily

  !  #/+#  !   #4  0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v.

9n ++(+* !,', the acti n the p ssess r and n t the ner is

%$# #!% . etirement beneits

! %#. is a legitimate subject 3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SPg

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

"he purp se the la is t all the emergence y unger bl

#). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences

the arc z heirs ill c nstitute

$/+%#(.ust h 3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3ACO is

* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

private individuals. (3e ple v. arti)

1.m pr bable cause that a crime has been c mmitted

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

As t Assailing the 9llegality a Seizure:

"he judge need n t c nduct a

9 r s me reas n, a search as n t c mpleted n the irst day it as

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

c nnecti n ith the ense are in the place s ught t be searched.

certiicati n d es n t bind the judge. "he issuance a arrant is n t a mere

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

9t is n t required that technical precisi n

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

"he particularity the place is essential t the issuance search arrants

A search arrant shall n t be issued but up n pr bable cause in c nnecti n

   

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

c nducted by A CO icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v.

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable

**H ever in P     here a man identiied

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

searches and seizures is n t

and articulable acts.

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

s ught are relevant t the inquiry. (Oklah ma 3ress v. Walling)

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

udge l ks 9nt the certiicati n

actually c mmitted r at least being attempted in their presence. With ut the

ne is   r m questi ning deects

"he iling the petiti ners a petiti n t be released n bail sh uld be

Sandy Crab and the plagiarist

arraignment. as persistent n his right t

2. When 3ublic Saety r Order requires it as prescribed by la.

ights g verns the

%&' ! %( 3rimacy Human ights

parties can kn the vari us issues and the # r decisi n.

"#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n

*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser r

! #/+# ! #4 0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v.

9n ++(+* !,', the acti n the p ssess r and n t the ner is

%$# #!% . etirement beneits

! %#. is a legitimate subject 3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals

&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SPg

#). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences

the arc z heirs ill c nstitute

$/+%#(.ust h 3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3ACO is

* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m

private individuals. (3e ple v. arti)

c nnecti n ith the ense are in the place s ught t be searched.

c nducted by ACO icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v.

' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable

**H ever in P here a man identiied

ne is r m questi ning deects

3"%# %,& . ncriminal pr cess, hich requires the pri r

)$! ."he press is n t exempt r m the taxing p ers

%(,%"&' seeks t pr tect pe ple r m unarranted intrusi ns and

(c) must &0&

%"##(+$# ith recipient instituti n

+('%#*/+%& !!%& "he religi us reed m enshrined in the Bill ights

3etiti ner )%)#"#/ + %( +" &#' and the

6 - 3 3

%,+$%&(%%# "he ature dipl macy requires the

* , epublic Act . 7160 r the P cal vernment C de 1991 requires all

, g.O. . 3 itsel is replete ith mechanics r c ntinuing c nsultati ns n

G B

1*% % !"+%)0&% !,!$%##)$%#

%#+%'!-*)($#."he judgment giving HA the right t expr priate the

&%+%=)* %#(.alls ithin the c nine public use. As l ng as the

%32+*."he market value a piece land is attained by a

bstacle t the legislative arm the g vernment. (epublic v. De Knecht)

J 3