You are on page 1of 31

NOV.

9, 2013 - Example: Husband and wife; children and parents: they have
rights, through practice and constant reminder, there are still
Oral arguments on PDAF. This is going to be THE oral arguments of limitations. Funny thing: limitation is post-facto.
the year. o That will not work for equals: no ex-post facto law.
o In a household, are husbands and wives equal? It’s a
- If you thought the RH oral arguments are the oral arguments of myth
the year, NO. o Two things a man can do (1) rights to give money to the
wife (2) rights to pay the bills.
PUTTING IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS - FRAMEWORK: when we talk of rights, they are inherent. The
SEMESTER. power actually flows from a delegation. That’s why a delegation
of power will always have to be tempered by the rights. The
- Last semester, we talked about power coming from the delegation is only good as long as it does not unnecessarily or
sovereign and DELEGATED to the State. unreasonably curtain the rights of those who have delegated
- The mechanism by which the state operates is the government the power. There is a test: test of REASON and NECESSITY.
→ whereby power is further DISTRIBUTED to 3 branches.
o For efficient working of the government and check of We shall be talking about the INHERENT POWERS of the state in a
exercise of power / prevent abuse. sense that there will be a rise of three essential powers of the state:
o PURPOSES:
- This second semester, we will be discussing WHAT THE - They don’t have to be stated in the Constitution.
MECHANISM is to prevent abuse. - Otherwise, there is no reason to come up with that system:
- We said that we may want to picture the system as something cannot be sustained.
like this: - Preamble, eminent domain, and provisions of taxation
a. POWER (standards: equitable, uniform).
b. RIGHTS 1. POLICE POWER: the power to legislate for the
o Seeking the correct balance. common good.
o We need to provide for the rights because the 2. EMINENT DOMAIN: power to redistribute or limit the
people are the ones who delegated their power. use and ownership of property.
o Power is still at the people. People may seek to 3. TAXATION: for government to work, everyone must
get the power back through extra-constitutional equitably shoulder the cost of government, the
mean. mechanism for furthering the common good.
o Example: People Power Revolution: when they - These powers can easily be abused because these are
were not satisfied how the government is doing PLENARY (very, very prone to abuse).
to the detriment of the common good of the - So the cases we will be discussing were those that will ensure
people. that there will be no abuse of those powers.
- MECHANISM: Constitution also guarantees that the power will - We will be talking about powers, the inherent powers, then the
not be abused. limitations of those powers (that they should not unnecessarily
- Constitutional Law 2: the mechanism on how such power will infringe or curtail those rights).
not be abused. - Exercise of power of the State as a whole vis-à-vis its possible
- CHECK OF POWER: judicial review. violation of individual rights or groups of people.
o Only within the framework of distribution of power within
government. It is difficult to integrate of everything: BASIC FRAMEWORKS.
o Object of judicial review was to ensure that they kept
within the boundaries. - Constitutional Law is taught as it is presented in your case
o WON one branch has gone beyond its power and books.
arrogated the power of another branch. - It’s up to you to figure out what the fuck they are all about
- OBJECTIVE: To go beyond the branches AND LOOK AT THE - SC justices who write these opinions intentionally make it
STATE AS A WHOLE VIS-À-VIS THE PEOPLE. difficult for law students to understand. They expect you to be
o Exercise of power of the state as a whole against the able to weave through the thick mud to end up with purified
people. water.
- Art. III: Bill of Rights: to identify (not to recognize) what already
exists as rights of individual or of a group of people. Re: PDAF: WON there has been a misappropriation (constitutional
- I am not saying that there is no right unless Art. III says there is question).
a right → INCORRECT.
o Because that means the document gives the right of the - What is your analysis of that system where the legislator
people: NO. THE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE THEIR identifies projects which are already in the budget of line
RIGHTS WHICH AROSE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY agencies? That is the question.
HAVE POWER. - It is easy because one can go back to the jurisprudence.
o They created the State. It is the people who did. - NOT a legal issue: WON there has been a misappropriation.
o These rights are INHERENT because you are a human - LEGAL ISSUE: WON PDAF is a violation of the Constitution
being. It is not the State that gives you the right. (PHILCONSA).
- What At. III does is to identify the rights and provide for - DAP issue: savings → pool → funding of different projects.
limitations. Constitutional or not?
- Rights are not absolute. If not, that will lead to chaos and not o This is the one that is difficult. Would you want another
the common good → against the objective of making a state. exam next week?

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 1 - Bantay


o How did the DBM justify the DAP? Cited the provisions EDU VS. ERICTA: valid
of the Administrative Code on savings, which predated
the 1987 Constitution. Issued by Aquino when she was - The Reflector Law is the issues.
exercising power of the Freedom Constitution. - 1960s: owners of cars are required to put reflectors both on the
side and back.
An act of Congress tested vis-à-vis the - Reflectoral tapes. Orange and yellow in color.
constitution: provision on augmentation. - Why was it being challenged? Violation of right to PROPERTY.
o BUT you can’t use the Administrative Code if the issue Why is it an unnecessary imposition? It will cost him money. He
is constitutional. The Court can just nullify the is also prevented from using his car, which is his property.
provisions of the Administrative Code. - He has a theory that he has a full enjoyment of those rights that
o Demetria vs. Alba: start from the constitution and take a the state cannot limit (doctrine of laissez-faire).
o There can be no limitations between contractual cases:
look at the jurisprudence.
ATKINS VS. POMAR (no minimum wage: depends
Figure out how the doctrine would not affect the upon the agreement of the employee and the employer.
DAP. o BUT that is the thing of the past.
- PD of Marcos was deemed superseded by the current o 1930s: Court: NO, we cannot, a this day and age, still
Constitution because the Constitution came later. countenance laissez-faire.
o A new doctrine arose: SOCIAL JUSTICE: to remove the
POLICE POWER: legislation. The nature is for the common good and inequities and to remove disparities between sectors.
o Allowing everyone to exercise all their rights is an
to promote common good.
inequitable distribution of wealth. It widens the gap
between the rich and the poor.
- PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION: to promote health, morals, - NOT ALLOWED BY THE COURT: it is founded by an
education, public safety, public order. argument long gone because of the realities.
o There must be a public purpose because it is the - What are we going to do now? To find out if such regulations
reason why we been bonded in the first place. When are necessary and if they are reasonable?
we say those things, is that exclusive? NO. - NECESSARY? YES. PUBLIC SAFETY. Valid purpose.
o In our pursuit of the common good, we have gone - REASONABLE? What is the test of reason? If the measure
removes doubt of arbitrariness. If the tape will lead to the
beyond the traditional aspirations. accomplishment of the purpose. Will it? YES.
o A century ago, we thought what will give us good life is - DEFINIETELY, it will warm people that there is a car that has
health, peace and order, and morals. tolled.
o NOW, how do we formulate? PREAMBLE. We - NOW: the problem with stickers is that they fade. In fact, they
expanded what to us will be necessarily for us to live a don’t even last a year. That’s why the requirements are now
good life to provide a justification why we bonded and changed to EWDs.
delegated power to the State.
- EFFECT: proscription of acts of people.
- It is the legislature exercising power for the pursuit of such
MMDA: to put their (something) at the backs of the helmets of
things → laws that we can ensure that there is love
motorcycle riders.
o Is there anything wrong with that? NO, it is now an
aspiration for us.
- Objective: peace and order.
o Example: at the center of education is the child.
- Reasonable: Constitutionally doubtful. National basis test; test
o It’s not education as the very reason and the child at
of reason.
the periphery. It is the child who is in the center,
- Can it actually lead to detection? NO, because if you are going
o There are many things that we have decided in our
to kill or rob someone, while you actually wear something like
Constitution, in our preamble, that is within the scope of
that?
common good and which may now impinge or limit the
rights of others.
- MEANS: legislation. ERMITA-MALATE VS. MANILA – FAILED. valid
- PURPOSE: common good.
- EFFECT: possible impairment of rights. - Property rights of the motel-owners are being violated? YES.
- COMMON GOOD: not everyone is in agreement of what is for - TENSION between the rights of the owners to earn money vis-
the common good. And now we have a problem. Some people à-vis public morals.
- What legislative finding did the city council find? Those who go
will feel that there is a violation of their right.
to motels are men who bring with them prostitutes or women
o Bawal umihi dito: some people will think that they can who are not their wives.
pee wherever they want to. It’s human nature. o Bringing those women is immoral, will harm public
o TENSION: the public purposes which presupposes a morals because it will destroy families.
benefit for many; which will necessarily imply a o To ensure that there is fidelity and monogamy.
limitation in the right of one or a few. - VALID? YES because at the heart of the society is the family.
o On the other hand, the right of that one person, or the - FEES? The purpose of the fee is to regulate. A fee for
regulation is necessary. Is the amount reasonable? YES. P6k
right of group of person.
or P4k/month only. It is a business tax.
o That tension needs to be addressed and the conflict - Court: it is a fixed tax and not a percentage tax. Would a fixed
must be resolved between the benefit to the many, and tax be reasonable? YES if the only purpose is regulation, it is.
the curtailment to the right of the few. A percentage tax is appropriation for income. But if it is only for
o There is no hard and fast rule. There are only certain regulation, it is reasonable.
tests how to strike the perfect balance. - NO SHORT-TIME? REASONABLE. No more than two per day.
Why is 12 hours reasonable? Because the purpose for going
there is to REST.
- LOGGING IN: it will require them to reveal their identities and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 2 - Bantay


their relationships to their guests. POLICE POWER IN EMPLOYMENT
o Most difficult issue. Why is that valid?
o Isn’t that encroachment of rights? It MIGHT be but it is - A century ago, the principle of employment is governed by the
not an infringement of the motel-owners’ rights. doctrine of laissez-faire.
o If you don’t want to go because you do not want to
- The theory is that these are covered by the contract provisions
reveal yourself, then the motels do not care.
o You need not even have to present an ID. But despite and these are property rights. It is up to the parties to negotiate
that, the rules were changed. what they want to agree on and government cannot intervene.
- The Court upheld the regulation as police power in order to - Great depression: shift of Pres. Roosevelt to intervene in the
promote public morals. matter of employment in order to ensure an opportunity to
work.
- During the Great Depression, many people lost their jobs and
people were just begging.
- GREAT DEAL: where the idea is to allow everyone to engage
in work in a very humane way that will require a lot of
WHITE LIGHT VS. MANILA – PASSED.
intervention (minimum wages, benefits, safeguards for women
- What did the motel owners learned from ERMITA-MALATE and workers) – met with a lot of dissentions.
how did it approach it differently? - Business groups said this infringed on their right for business.
- ARGUMENT: public morals argument is now weak. The SOCAL JUSTICE ARGUMENT: If the government will not
argument HAS CHANGED. intervene, the gap will increase and that will not do good to the
- Things have changed in Manila. What was the public purpose? society and can lead to revolt that may bring down the
IT WAS PEACE AND ORDER NOW because the hotels in government.
Manila are now being used from drug transactions, NOT
- Despite the lobby of big industrial groups, the SC was made to
PUBLIC MORALS ANYMORE.
- In fact, motels in Manila lost their business as far as prostitution adopt this new doctrine.
and infidelity is concerned. - SC during that time is full of Republicans (pro-business,
- There has been a shift in the public purpose so White Light conservative). Eventually, they changed their thinking.
attacked the ordinance in a different way. PROPERTY - SOCIAL JUSTICE became a norm.
RIGHTS; NOW: PRIVACY of the customers. - SC Phil., led by Justice Laurel, put the end to the doctrine of
- The Court has rejected an assertion of public right vis-à-vis
laissez-faire. It is a turning point as it abandoned the contract
public morals in Ermita because public rights (property) are
ranked the lowest in the hierarchy of rights (life → liberty → laws and property rights as a defense to government
property). intervention to employment.
- Now, the rights of liberty, second rank, were used and the - CURRENT BACKDROP: 1 out of 10 Filipino adults capable of
Courts accepted the standing of the hotel owners to represent work is actually working in some other country. For every 10
its customers. Filipinos who are working, 1 will actually be working overseas.
o Who has standing? Those who will suffer injury - National interest: what is keeping the economy afloat is the
(customers).
remittance of those Filipinos working overseas.
o The court said that precisely, if the claim is privacy,
then the customers are not allowed to go to court. If - That 1 out of 10 is a hero because he is carrying a heavier
they did, then they are deemed to have waived such burden than any other Filipino.
right of privacy. o He sends the money back to the country, and his family
o Third party: noble way of allowing the standing of the spends it hers, it spurs economic activity.
petitioner because there is a substantial relationship - As far as marketing is concerned, they are mostly directed to
(owners) to the customers. OFWs; in the Internet or websites visited by OFWS.
o Actually White Light is the one that provided the
o Those who are selling cars, their biggest sales are to
environment where the person can demand that the
customers can be accorded their privacy. those OFW families.
o They were careful NOT to assert a business interest o In the provinces, for subdivisions, same thing.
(3rd and lowest) rank. - OFWs play very, very important roles.
- PURPOSE: peace and order. - BUT OFWs undergo a lot of abuse in other countries and the
- NECESSARY: The Court did not go into that. government is trying to really protect them.
- REASONABLE: WON the means used will it further the end
o OFW dug mules in China and we cannot do anything to
(peace and order); NOT REASONABLE.
o Because it is OVERBROAD: no distinction between stop it.
those who will go there for illegal actions to those from o DHs are prone to abuse.
who will use it for illicit relations and rest. - But government has tried to find ways to prevent abuse to the
o ACTUALLY, the customers might actually be going point of regulating the recruitment agencies and this has
there to rest. There is no presumption for illicit sex created a lot of tensions with the agencies and OFWs
because prostitutes were already driven away. themselves.
- There are MANY MORE LAWS AND MEANS where the matter
of drug trades is to be regulated.
- ACTUALLY, no relation between hotel and motel use to drug
trade. PASE VS. TORRES (recitation)
- Whatever it was in the 60s is already passé. The Court is
already aware of such change. - Overseas employment and government regulation.
- From a constitutional perspective, you see a change in public - Petitioner Phil association of exporters filed a prohibition and
purpose and the technique used in attacking the ordinance (the TRO against sec of DOLE and POEA from enforcing the
right being asserted) has killed the ordinance and that makes a DOLE DEPT ORDER #16 and POEA MEMIRADUM
difference. CIRCULARS 30 & 37 which temporarily suspended the
recruitment of private employment agencies in deploying
domestic helpers to Hong Kong and vesting DOLE the grant
to process the task of deploying them.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 3 - Bantay


- REASON OF ORDER: problem of abuse of Filipinos maids as a separate state, it is allowed.
and protection of Filipino helpers o But through time, the right transformed itself. Anyone
- POEA also issued circular on the processing of employment can buy a gun. And Chavez asserted that right.
contracts of DH’s to HK - Court: the historico-legal context is completely different in the
- Petitioners contention: (1) respondents committed grave Philippines. It is a privilege granted by the State (Law on
abuse of discretion in issuing said circulars as abuse in rule Firearms).
making authority (2) said circulars are unconstitutional (3) o “Robin Padilla law:” to favor Robin Padilla to shorten
not in accordance with duly published rules the sentence for illegal possession.
- ISSUE : WON said circular is unconstitutional. NO. - PROPERTY RIGHTS: the license, NOT a property right.
1. Art 36 of Labor Code grants the Sec of DOLE the o However, the license is a mere privilege which can be
power to restrict and regulate recruitment and revoked by the State.
placement activities (vesture of quasi-legislative and - DUE PROCESS: is there need to notice and hearing? NONE. It
quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not being a clear privilege.
unconstitutional). - The higher value: TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY.
2. However they are invalid for failure of publication in the - Is it necessary and reasonable? YES. The old system was a
Office of National Admin. Register. mockery of regulation. Even a dead person can apply for a
gun. It was so easy to own a fire arm.
- Objective: only those who are qualified can issue firearms.
- REASONABLE: to have the tests? What are the other stricter
requirements? Personal appearance.
JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT. INC VS CA - The thing is the purpose is to ensure that only those who are fit
are to be issued with firearms.
- ISSUE: government’s power to control deployment of Female - But is there a relation between the object and the means?
entertainers in Japan by requiring an ARTIST RECORD BOOK YES. BUT CHAVEZ said that it only makes it difficult for those
(ARB) as a precondition to the processing of POEA of any who are qualified to apply for a license. Those who are
contract for overseas employment. committing crimes do not have licences anyway. Why did the
- Petitioner’s contention: right to overseas employment is Court say that that is reasonable? Now that we know, anyone
property right therefore violation of due process. who is not in the roster of owners is presumed to be violating
- FACTS (following death of entertainer Mariciris Sioson 1991) the law. There is a presumption that will arise in the law itself:
→ deployment ban by Aquino. here is a presumption against those who do not have licenses.
- FETMOP filed case where afterward petitioner JMM Promotion o At least there is connection, Court said.
intervened.TC denied both petitions and also CA contending
that the issuances constituted a valid police power.
- HELD: Yes. State’s police power to promote general welfare. It
is to lessen the room for exploitation by unscrupulous PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
individuals and agencies. Any profession are required with
strict requirements in working abroad - Provision in the Civil Code: there is a system of preference of
credits. What is its whole idea? Foreclosures. That for instance
that somebody goes bankrupt, who is to be paid first? If he
owes to much and he only has this much left, who has to be
REGULATIONS OF FIRE ARMS
paid first?
- There is a system and preferred creditors.
CHAVEZ VS. ROMULO

- Side note: Chavez has died. NDC vs. PVB:


- What was the regulation and why was Chavez challenging it.
- GMA has given a verbal instruction to the PNP Chief. - PD of Marcos suspended payments for all liens against Agrix
- Cancelling of all those licences to apply again based on stricter so it can be rehabilitated.
standards. - Agrix was set up in Laguna and they got money from
- Why? There were so many lose firearms being used in crimes. investments of professors of UP Los Banos. For a while, they
- Chavez: the implementation of this new regulation curtails the were really profiting. Then it ventured to other businesses. It
property right of gun-owners through their licences. Right to went bankrupt because it over-extended its businesses.
bear arms is a constitutional right. AND due process argument o UP professors went to Marcos and Mr. Marcos tried to
(revocation without notice and hearing). save Agri and be taken over by NDC and suspend
o Are these powerful enough to defeat the power of the payments of all liens.
state to exercise police power. o Otherwise, if its assets will be liquidated, the investors
- State: what is the nature of this regulation? This is a police will get nothing because they were not the preferred
power regulation (peace and order, public safety). credits.
- Court: right to bear arms is ONLY a statutory right. - Veterans is one of the preferred creditors and were estopped to
o What is its nature? Why is there a provision to bear claim. But it is no longer Martial Law. Still, they were saying
arms in the American Constitution? Collective right to that the PD was a legitimate exercise of police power.
bear arms to protect the state. - Was it a proper exercise of power? NO. It provided for
o To have a militia in order to defend the state in times of UNEQUAL protection and violated the rule for equal protection.
war. Favoured a particular group and not the other groups.
o Federal government has no resources. It is relying on - PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ONE GROUP against the
the separate states and the resources of those states. PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OTHER GROUP. Which groups’
The states have no armies (only volunteers). property rights take precedence?
o They were armed, despite not being trained. - It is easy to solve. It took it out of the mantle of police power
o War of Independence: please come and when you and just rights vs. rights that is provided for by law in the Civil
come, please bring your on gun, food, blanket and Code.
everything: VOLUNTARY. - Mr. Marcos cannot create an exception because there is no
o Because it was essential to the maintenance of the US exception in the Civil Code. It discriminated other creditors in

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 4 - Bantay


contravention to the preference of credits → constitutional - DOH extended the period. Mooted. They were given enough
violation (equal protection). time.
- You cannot use police power as a mantle to protect the - You have to connect the means (substantive due process) and
property rights of one group vis-à-vis another. the objective. The means must really be something that is
- Art. 2242: Taxes → mortgages → etc. reasonable considering the objective. In this case, definitely,
closing down with a phase-out period can be deemed
reasonable as it was established the necessity.
- It takes it out of the covers of man: blood donating became a
CONFISCATION OF LICENSES business.
- Blood bank: 1:4, because probably only 1 will qualify.

MMDA VS. GARIN

- MMDA confiscated the licence of the motorist for illegal NOV. 16, 2013
parking.
- Garin: MMDA cannot do so. Some constitutional issues: TYPHOON HAIYAN.
- MMDA: we can. Exercise of police power.
- Can MMDA do so? NO. MMDA has no police power. Police - There was a suggestion to declare martial law: de facto martial
power is lodged in any legislative body and to the LGUs. It is a law (no such thing).
legislative power.
o What can be more irresponsible than that?
- What is the nature of MMDA? Administrative. They are
performing executive duties under the Office of the President. It - NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS of doing so (rebellion or
is an executive body. invasion, when public safety requires it).
- Resolutions of the Mayor, can they empower the MMDA? NO. - LAWLESS VIOLENCE (looting): calling out power only.
Who must pass the law then authorizing confiscation because - The first thing that should have been done is establishment of
of traffic violation? THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD. access (information and of the places).
Each sanggunian should now pass its ordinance authorizing
- What delayed it is the supplies are actually too much. But no
MMDA to confiscate. Which LGU did not authorize such?
MAKATI; usurpation of function and will be arrested by police in one thought of clearing the roads.
Makati. o Without the roads, the other alternative is air transport
- It would depend upon a legislative branch. because the ports were destroyed.
- LGU exercises police power → deputizing MMDA to implement - Only DPWH was clearing the entire region.
traffic ordinance for and in behalf of the local government. o Everyone else was just standing in helplessness.
- That’s why Bayani Fernando had a very difficult time. When - You want a place to land. Do you want the pilots to clear the
Binay was MMDA chair, MMDAs are allowed in Makati. Can
runway?
they do that? YES, in fact they did.
- NOT properly delegated and deputized by the LGUs through its - Logistics nightmare.
legislative bodies. - The things that you do on the first day are different from the
- Can MMDA confiscate your licence? Now, IT DEPENDS. things you will do on the third day.
- RULE: MMDA is not a legislative body, hence, it does not have - Small packs ONLY (must not be):
police power. 1. 1 kilo of rice.
2. 2 canned goods.
3. 3 packs of noodles.
4. 1 or 2 liters of water.
BELTRAN VS. SEC. OF HEALTH - You will be stunned with helplessness and you need something
to do. So the best thing is to give them the task of
- The law provides for the phasing out of commercial blood administering the rationing.
banks. - The only province prepared was Albay. On paper, they seem
- They were given two years to phase out, with extension like it. Everyone is running for cover and LGs are not
(depending on the result of the evaluation). functioning.
- PURPOSE: for government to have its own blood banks
- Family packs (brought through big trucks and air lifts):
(government hospitals). WHY? What is the rationale?
Commercial blood banks were buying blood. And because they 1. Mats, blankets, mosquito nets.
were buying, anyone who wants money is just selling his blood 2. Basic cooking utensils (pots)
and commercial banks are not properly screening (leading to 3. Toiletries.
contaminations: HIV, malaria, syphilis). 4. Water purification system (portable)
o Professional blood-sellers (from squatters). The - The helicopters we have are no use. They are only good for
practice was so rampant (especially in UP Campus). recognizance (looking at or surveying the area).
o What has already been packed can no longer be
checked. - You have to find a way to bring the packages that you pack.
- Radical shift in the law so commercial blood banks are The supplies will not be able to walk by themselves.
prohibited and were subject to pa phase out period. - Filipinos have the habit of just sitting down and demanding
- Petitioners: violation of equal protection. everything to be brought to them.
- DOH: an exercise of police power by the state by the legislative - Lack of information → creates a lot of stress.
branch. DOH has only been implementing what has been - Pre-positioning of goods in Manila is completely useless
provided for by the legislative branch.
because it only creates ore problems.
- TEST? The prohibition on commercial blood banks and the
phase-out period necessary? YES. State objective: public o At the municipal level; movements must be westward.
health and safety. - Foreign donations (IN CASH): we have a lot of money and we
- Are the means reasonable? YES. What were the means? must find things that we can buy, but they are not available in
Closing down through a phase-out period. If it is closed down the Philippines.
NOW, it could be unreasonable.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 5 - Bantay


- Medical teams are helpful but there must be a plan where they - We have to make choices: what benefits the greatest number
will be placed. which results to the inconvenience of the few vs. the benefits of
o Labor intensive; you need to provide for SECURITY. the few and inconvenience of the many.
o They do not travel light (1,000kg of supplies). - The good of the many is the supreme law.
- SOLUTION: to provide for access (land, air, sea). - We are not talking about the choice being made by the many.
- We need to find helicopters that do not need to land (just We are actually talking about the choice of those
hover). The goods are not put inside, they must just be hoisted. EMPOWERED by the constitution: LEGISLATIVE.
o If helicopters cannot lot, they can drop the goods. But - Where does the pursuit of the common good end vis-à-vis the
what happens when you drop 10 liters of water? 100 right of an individual?
kilos of rice? o LINEAR WAY: where is the boundary? That’s why we
- WHAT CAN YOU DO? LONG-TERM. Prioritize the survivors. have all these cases. But in making a decision on
o Shelter: construction materials organized tent-cities. where there is a perfect balance, you might be
o First you need to clear an area. Most will be displaced surprised that it moves. The perfect balance can be
in Cebu. Those who landed in Viliamor (DSWD). arrived even when it is not 50-50 because it will depend
o District 2 of QC (Payatas). on the STANDARDS OF PROTECTION (Constitution).
o People are going to Catbalogan. - LIMITS: substantive DUE PROCESS (reasonableness of the
- It’s not that government is not doing anything. They are not just regulation or the limitation) and EQUAL PROCTECTION (Sec.
efficient 1, Art. III).
- In Tacloban, they could not even have a quorum to pass o How reasonable it is vis-à-vis the stated public purpose.
ordinances. o You are looking at the causal relation between the
- Staying there is not a good idea because you see all of these means and the ends. If yes, valid exercise of police
bad things. Have you ever been in a situation when you are too power. If not (Whitelight), it is not.
stupefied to do anything? You cannot get out of that stupor. o EQUAL PROTECTION: certain effects beneficial or
- Stress debriefing takes two weeks. But it is easier to deal with adverse to certain groups. If there is a VALID
the stress of the children than adults’. CLASSIFICATION / DISTINCTION, then indeed, they
- Are we worried about the classrooms? NO. Education is not cannot be treated on the way.
centered in classrooms. In fact, there is very little education Everyone in Group A will be treated the same.
done in the classrooms. Everyone in Group B will be treated the same.
The law recognizes the distinction between
FINALS EXAMINATION: Re: Zamboanga question (president’s Group A and B.
emergency powers). Sex: with distinction. Race: NO distinction;
everyone must be treated the same.
- You have to tell me under what circumstances the President - You have to be very cautious when you look at these problems.
can do this or that.
- Part of our task is to facilitate the decision-making process by
giving good advice: legal standards. POLICE POWER EMMINENT DOMAIN
- You never jump into a conclusion → only media persons can
do that.
NOT provided for in the Provided for in the Constitution:
Constitution. LIMITATION.
Why do I tell stories? Because many are late.

POLICE POWER: the exercise of the administrative power for the Power to legislate Power to expropriate
pursuit of certain valid public purposes. (LEGISLATIVE). (LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE and
JUDICIARY STATE).
- The public purpose comes under the rubric of general welfare
→ common good.
The legislative branch prohibits or The State takes away
- The realization of the aspiration that we put in our constitution.
regulates acts (LIBERTY). PROPERTY RIGHTS.
- If before, we only talk about traditional issues (public health,
public safety). Now we have enlarged what is necessary for a
good life. “Bawal umihi dito:” prohibitory Because there is taking, there is
o In our preamble, we even talked about love. and regulatory. JST COMPENSATION.
o EXPANDED VIEW: cover everything where there is the
use of the coercive power of the State in passing its
laws. PUBLIC PURPOSE that pursues TAKING must be based on
the common good. CHECK: PUBLIC USE. CHECK: payment
o It will force people to change conduct.
substantive due process. of just compensation.
o WE HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL because there is a
guarantee in the constitutions that the rights will be
protected. There is NO ELEMENT of There is an ELEMENT of police
BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE (100%). eminent domain. power.
- Theoretically all of the things can be the subject of legislation.
- What is the essence of the legislation? For the common good.
Public PURPOSE. Public USE.
This pursuit will now limit the rights of individuals or a group of
persons.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 6 - Bantay


- The difference DOES make in the Constitution. project).
- Why should we make a distinction? - May the owner get the land back? NO.
- Does that mean that there is no due process in eminent - Was the public use retained? YES, even if NHA has not used
domain? NOW THERE IS. it. The objective still fell under that
- USE: to address a general welfare concern → urban land
- Police power folded with eminent domain when it comes to reform and housing → providing homes for dislocated informal
PROPERTY RIGHTS. settlers.
o Just compensation AND violation/observance of equal - The interface of police power and eminent domain: expanded
protection (BEFORE, only just compensation) public benefit and interest → to benefit the poor who cannot
afford to live in the city and were relocated in Cavite.
- EVEN THOUGH the squatters cannot buy such anyway.
***ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF AGRARIAN Perhaps, only through PAG-IBIG.
REFORMS - BUT GOVERNMENT DID NOT PAY. Can the government use
it before paying it in full?
Petitioners are the landowners. - VALID TAKING (public use) established: government cannot
be evicted anymore. The government is already IN
ISSUE: WON there is just compensation as required by the POSSESSION of it. All they can demand now is just
constitution. NO. compensation.
- THE POINT: the mere fact that government has not paid, does
Is the power to take being questioned? NO. It is in the Constitution. that nullify the taking? NO. THE TAKING IS STILLVALID AND
What is being questioned is the SYSTEM. The petitioners say it in LAWFUL.
violation of the Constitution. - THERE IS PRIOR ESTABLISHMENT OF just compensation:
NOW, what is left to do is EXECUTION OF PAYMENT.
- Traditionally, the rule is to pay in full and in cash for the - Acquisitive possession (30 years of exclusive possession).
government to expropriate rights. - TAKING vs. DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION:
- HERE they are being paid through deferred payments, credits, the impact is that the taking, if it is for public use, cannot be
bonds. reversed. The only issue is for JUST COMPENSATION. It is
- If you were the land owner, your land will be taken away from only for judgment of specific performance.
you, then you would have to wait for a long time to get - May the taking be reversed because of non-payment? NO.
compensation. Why? The bonds were for how long? 10, 25
years.
- FRAMEWORK: why did the Court discuss police power first
before discussing eminent domain? Why did the Court say it is
looking at the practical view? CITY OF MANDALUYONG VS. AGUILAR
TEST OF REASON. It brought in police power to bring
in the test of reason. Is it unreasonable and arbitrary - Instead of looking for public lands, it just expropriated private
given the realities given for just compensation be given lands for in-city relocation of its informal settlers.
under this system? NO. - Is the taking of land for in-city relocation a valid and lawful
If it is reasonable, then the government will have NO public use? YES, but…
MONEY for other services of the government. - LEGISLATIVE ASPECT: the legislature authorizes the taking.
Court says it’s going to cost A LOT OF MONEY. The State LIMITED the power to take for urban land reform
Is there justification to bring in the discussion of police purposes.
power? PURPOSE OF CARP: to give the landless - Does it have the plenary power? YES. But can the State limit
lands and to address social unrest founded on its own taking of the property? YES. That is what RA 7279 did.
maldistribution of resources, land being one of those - Court: although the State make take, Congress has limited the
resources. power to take.
That’s why the government now is doing PPP (State → - SETTING UP OF PRIORITY OF LAND TO BE USED (private
subsidies and incentives [education and health]). land is LAST) AND there are also limitations and exceptions
Wealth will be distributed if they go to school and be (small lands might not be taken) → SEC. 9.
healthy. - Here the lands, they were too small.
TO ADDRESS DISPARITIES.
- The heart of CARP is compensation, not the retention rights.
- REGULATION: you can only have this much because LAND
CANNOT EXPAND.
- IF NOT, the disparities will be TOO MUCH and government will
LAGCAO VS. LABRA
be toppled → new State will be established (People’s
Republic).
- The land was big enough. So that big a land was viable.
- This is a very, very big issue that has to be addressed.
- CEBU: passed the Ordinance expropriating the property.
AGRARIAN REFORM IS NOT THE END, it is only a MEANS.
Valid? NO.
THE MEANS SHOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY.
- Court: since Congress did not just also provide for a limitation,
Unless it will be struck down.
it also provided for HEIRARCHY. Cebu failed to show that they
- THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THIS CASE HAS NOW BECOME
exhausted the list.
THE NORM WHEN YOU LOOK AT EMINENT DOMAIN.
- In this case, what was the analysis used by the Court? Was it is
- Why did the Court marry police power and eminent domain?
still strictly eminent domain? DUE PROCESS component.
Answer: FRAMEWORK.
- For instance, if you are hired by a property owner because the
government wants to expropriate his property. CHECKLIST:
1. WON it is for public use: the government has the
burden of proving the use is of public in nature.
You need to establish that there is a NEED for
REYES VS. NHA something (e.g. school). It doesn’t mean that a
mere building of the school is a good public use
- The owner was not paid and NHA DID NOT develop the place justifying the expropriation. It needs to show the
→ gave it already to a private contractor (socialized housing NECESSITY of such building.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 7 - Bantay


Beneficial to the public at large. - TAXES ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ROLE: to redistribute wealth
Central transport terminal? YES, even if they → POLICE POWER.
bid it out to private owners (REYES). o A mechanism by which the State addresses issues by
2. Just compensation. being PROGRESSIVE and EQUITABLE. Those who
Exchange a parcel of land at the side of the
mountain. Can you client refuse the payment? have more, pay more.
YES. - TO GET A SHARE.
- To the extreme: it can actually destroy and can result to
PROHIBITING and TAKING. That’s why you have to be
careful. If the taxation amounts to be taking, there needs to be
If everything was for easy for students to understand, Prof. will rest just compensation. If it is only for the purpose of regulating and
prohibiting, no compensation. That’s why there is an issue of
Most of the lands in Pampanga are covered of tax declarations (title is reasonableness, due process and equal protection.
not yet perfected). - VAT: percentage tax in transactions; INCOME TAX (gross -
compensation).
- Does government actually care that the title is transferred to it?
NO.
- The land is already used by the government but the title is still SISON VS. ANCHETA
with the owners and they have to pay the tax. This is because
they did not accept the offer of DPWH. - There was a violation of equal protection. Was it valid to use
equal protection against taxation? YES. The interface between
- Why can the state take? REGALIAN DOCTRINE: in the first
taxation and the exercise of police power.
place, who owns all of the lands? The State. It is in its liberality - Gross compensation income is pre-determined. For doctors
that it releases the land and be title to private persons. who pay taxes based on gross income, they are actually paying
o Regalia: Regalian is the King. In old England, after the expenses have already been deducted and there is a
everything is owned by the King and he gives it to his determined amount which they call is their NET INCOME.
supporters. What can be regarded as expenses? EVERYTHING.
o Alienable and disposable → to be released to private When you don’t get a receipt, then the payment will not
be counted.
individuals.
- Group of professionals who were protesting against the
o The only exception to Regalian Doctrine is scheme.
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN. - Was there a violation of equal protection? Were they treated
o The Constitution recognizes the rights of the indigenous differently? NO.
people. They were there even before ere was a State. - Taxation needs to be uniform AND EQUITABLE.
- There will be no distinctions between the same group.
TAXATION - What needs to be established? That there must be a VALID
DISTINCTION.
- Is there a valid distinction covered by gross compensation
- Not the same as police power with provides for the interplays of
income and those covered by gross income? GCI is pre-
police power and taxation. determined and GI varies from quarter to quarter and is
- NATURE: LEGISLATIVE POWER; the executive merely dependent upon many factors.
implements tax laws. - WHY IS THAT VALID? Why is the distinction valid? Why even
o In a very limited sense, the Congress can delegate to bother make a distinction between the two? FOR PRACTICAL
the President power to set tariffs and quotas. REASONS. For pre-determined, it is withheld so government
- CONSTITUTION AS FAR AS TAX LAWS: must emanate from can immediately get it. The distinction is not even if you work
privately and publicly.
the House of Representative. - Under gross income, they cannot be determined so there is a
- WHAT DOES THE STATE DO WHEN IT TAXES? To raise valid ground between the distinctions.
revenues to fund services for the general welfare. o Distinction: HOW and WHEN it can be paid.
- WHY IS IT INHERENT? It naturally flows from the very concept - Government or private employee SAME MECHANISM
of having a State. It is something that the State cannot do where tax is withheld at source.
without. So even if there are no provisions of it in the - A distinction between lawyers and doctors valid? NO, there are
no real distinctions between them as they are gross income
Constitution, the Congress CAN still enact tax laws.
earners.
o Some countries (60% income tax): subsidized
transport, free education, free medical help.
o They can actually live without using the remaining 40%.
- As far as the State is concerned, it can use its COERCIVE
POWER to make its citizens pay. REYES VS. ALMANZOR
- Non-payment of taxes entails jail time: you are defrauding the
State by availing the services without paying anything. - Why is Reyes in court? He is challenging what tax? REAL
- IDEALLY, there should be a determined cost of the services PROPERTY TAX of the apartment building he owned in the
City of Manila.
and you pay a uniform fee for the service. But because of
- Why did he challenge the assessment (when you are told what
maldistribution of income, that does not work. to pay)? Manila used the comparative sales approach →
- So even if we wanted it to be uniform, it has to be applied to ALL commercial establishments.
CONSIDERATE OF DISPARITIES (equitable), and o Based on the market, what rate should be used for the
PROGRESSIVE. assessment.
o The higher the tax base, the higher the tax burden. - Isn’t that uniform? YES.
o The percentage becomes bigger as the tax base - SC: applying it uniformly is a violation of the Constitution.
- ELABORATE THEORY: did they all belong to the same class?
becomes bigger.
NO. They were all commercial establishments but there is the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 8 - Bantay


Rental Freezing Law. actually be taxed.
- His property was not allowed by the RENT CONTROL LAW to - Exemptions are supposed to be strictly construed against the
earn the same rentals as other apartment buildings. taxpayer.
- NEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS were not covered by the - NAPOCOR (GOCC), is it part of the national government?
Rental Freeze Law. YES. BUT GOCC’s are taxable unless expressly exempted by
- Reyes cannot even raise its rent even if it is for the purpose of law.
paying the tax because their prices were frozen (below - NAPOCOR said there is a provision on its charter that they are
300/apartment building). exempted.
- Violation of EQUAL PROTECTION based on the premise that - LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE that allows the LGUs to tax
they are all of the same category. them and deemed to have modified the exemptions given to
- Police power has also infiltrated the power to tax, the GOCC’s in their charter.
arguments used in questioning police power can be used to the
cases in taxation.
- MERITS of the argument: while it may be uniform, that is not
the end of the story → other rights. NOV. 23, 2013

Administrative announcements: e-mailed to Sir Ramil the full case of


the PDAF.
COMM. INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SOLIDBANK
- Next meeting, we will be discussing about it.
- Double taxation: same person taxed twice for the same thing. - 72 pages long; 4 concurring opinions.
- No provision in the constitution against it but you can deduce it - This is really a decision abandoning the doctrine in
from the concept of due process. It violates due process if you PHILCONSA vs. ENRIQUEZ; we have to look at the new
are taxed twice → like double jeopardy. doctrine announced by the SC.
- TRICK: when is there double compensation and taxation? - Bernabe, Carpio, Brion, Sereno, and Leonen.
- SOLIDBANK: Tax is on interest income and they say interest is - All of you are supposed to read everything.
being taxed?
- 14-0: discussion for an hour.
- Is there DOUBLE TAXATION? NO.
- The interest earned by the depositors is FWT (it is pre- - We have to go back because we can’t prepare you for the bar
determined). exam with you still thinking that PHILCONSA is still the
- There are two different persons paying the tax → DEPOSITOR operative one.
and the BANKS. - You have to tell me your experience for the DAP CASES;
- It’s not the bank that is paying the 20%, the bank is just predict the outcome of the case.
withholding it. So the bank still has to pay GRT. - Who argued? PETITIONERS (Fortun, Dean Agapin, Lazaro,
- It’s not the same person, it’s not the same tax, it’s not the same
Sarate). They were interpolated by the Justices.
thing (income of the depositor and of the bank)
- Who asked most of the questions? Leonen, Carpio.
- OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:

1. There were not so many students.


LUNG CENTER 2. What questions could you have answered?
3. What were the arguments? SAVINGS (Demetria vs.
- Tax exemptions → strictly against the taxpayers because taxes Alba) → Sec. Abad used the provision in the
are the lifeblood of the nation. Administrative Code and was challenged by Justice
- Constitutional and legislative exemptions → creation a lot of
Abad.
confusion.
- No one is to be exempted unless provided by the law. 4. Who among the 4 lawyers had the best arguments?
- REAL PROPERTY TAX on the WHOLE property of the Lung 5. Unobligated funds vis-à-vis savings → there is a
Center. Does Lung Center have an exemption? YES. Why? difference between the two.
Charitable institution, even if it charges high fees for patients. 6. Politics of the Justices; who says that justices are
As long as it provides services FREE OR CHARGE to apolitical?
indigents, it is ENOUGH to make it a charitable institution. o The SC is like the Catholic Church.
- Does that mean it will not pay any real property taxes? NO.
o Unlike the Church, there are 15 justices and the
- The exemption applies only to the parts ACTUALLY
DIRECTLY, and EXCLUSIVELY USED. politics of each one cancels each other’s.
- The whole hospital is exempted but those used for commercial o Individual justices with individual biases,
purposes and leased to commercial tenants will be charged preferences, experiences in life and all of these
(including doctors’ offices). shape the decision-making process.
- Another level for its analysis: that the property will NOT BE o From the oral arguments, we can see how the
TAKEN AS A WHOLE and subdivide it to parts covered by the intellectual process of each one goes. The way
exemption and not covered by the exemption.
they ask questions and how they react to
certain questions.
o There are 4 justices who are sworn enemies of
the CJ now.
NAPOCOR VS. CITY OF CABANATUAN - Let’s see how it goes.
- There has been no TRO issued for the DAP.
- Now being assessed by Cabanatuan a FRANCHISE TAX. - How the President uses the resources available to him to
- NAPOCOR tells Cabanatuan that it cannot pay because it is address the calamity in Region VIII can also influence the
exempted under its charter. perceptions of justices, especially how he uses the Malampaya
- Is it exempted? NO. Can it be taxed? YES.
o To know if it is exempted, we should know first if it can

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 9 - Bantay


funds and the PAGCOR funds, which are covered by the PDAF it’s more of the lack of resources (raised) and expertise
cases. (developed).
- The two cases are ultimately tied. PDAF was not only invalided - Security and disaster management is completely different
in the GAA and also tapped to the Presidential fund, which sciences. Logistic people are needed: to ensure access so that
cannot be used for structures and the Malampaya funds you can deliver goods.
(energy). - Set up a system of evacuation based on international
- The PDAF can also provide guidelines to the President. standards. This should be done in such a way that they are
- Bernabe: you will see how the SC made a decision and tried to 24/7 ready.
find a logical and coherent justification in their decision. - The areas are also cleared for tent cities for the first 24 hours.
- It’s going to be costly. So we need people who can think.
TACLOBAN: having a highly urbanized city there will result to more - The preparation is when the military comes in, actually. There
deaths. must also be REGULAR DRILLS to move the people. There is
a scientific way of moving them without killing them. People
- Having seen the topography and knowing that it has already would have to be disciplined.
happened before, it’s crazy to rebuild something that is less - Salcedo has been neglected so the people were really going
than three stories high. crazy there and they are jumping to helicopters to get the
- It will happen; maybe not this year. But definitely it will happen goods.
again. o The people were left to fend for themselves.
- Guian has been destroyed many times before. Definitely, - The more logical thing for law students to do is to collect and
typhoons will hit it. It’s like Casiguran, Aurora. turn them over to Red Cross.
o It’s like living in Legaspi. - The people should also be briefed. Even the task of burying
- In case of Tacloban, there is no place to run. That’s why those their dead, they must also participate for the sake of closure.
who tried to go inland were not in any way safe because the - Should we have a department for a disaster risk reduction?
water went as far as at least 7 kilometers, 11 kilometers even, The law is really good but it was not being implemented well.
in land.
- The schools became death traps and they all died there. Last time we talked about inherent power of the state.
- No one believed that it will happen. BUT IT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED BEORE and no one bothered to prepare for that. 1. Police power: legislation for public welfare.
That’s the tragedy. 2. Eminent domain: power for taking for public use for just
- It’s like going there knowing that you will die: death wish. compensation.
They’d rather die in a place they want to. 3. Taxation: power to demand to contribute.
o Has to be respected.
- How many years will it take to rebuild Tacloban? A decade. - We know all of these are tempered by the Constitution itself.
- You have to build the infrastructures first (water system, - If we draw the scale, where we have the power side and the
electricity). rights on the other, how do know that powers are not abuse
- But everything is built near the shore. That place is low-lying. and rights are protected?
- Man is in a battle against nature and nature wins all of the time. - The concept of DUE PROCESS actually ensures the balance.
- How many people can Taclabon actually carry? Can it actually - Sec. 1, Art. III: what’s the right? Actually those are LIFE,
carry 220,000 people? LIBERTY OR PROPERTY ONLY, which could not be deprived
- It’s for urban planners to decide what is the extent of the buffer if only when there is due process and equal protection. Due
zone. process is not the right by itself.
- It’s like Cebu; it’s only a strip of land. But it was protected by - Even if your right is not unlimited, nevertheless, it is not done in
Mactan Island. The threat now to Cebu is that the sea is rising an arbitrary and capricious, unjust, manner.
because of global warming. - HOW THIS WORKS: does your employer have the power to fix
- WHAT IS OUR PROBLEM? We have too many people living in your wages and working conditions? YES. As a worker, do you
areas which are unsafe because these were all not planned. have a right? YES, security of tenure. But those two are always
Our instinct is to leave near means of transportation. competing. How can we ensure the balance that is required in
- There should be MASSIVE RELOCATION. Would that mean the Constitution:
giving them land in Mindanao? That would create another
social problem because there are tensions between Moros and 1. Due process: that the rules are reasonable
Christians. (SUBSTANTIVE).
o You have to give them some land eventually. 2. Notice and hearing (PROCEDURAL): the chance to
- We hope that from what happened, everyone will take disaster controvert or to answer.
risk development seriously.
- Disaster management is done at the LOCAL level. - But the law also says that this cannot be done in a way that will
ASSUMPTIONS: put you at a disadvantage vis-à-vis your fellow employees. All
of you must be treated in the same way because you are in the
1. Local government prioritizes disaster risk. same situation → EQUAL PROTECTION.
2. They have the resources. - The law allows for SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION that will
3. They have the expertise to deal with it. You need account for different treatment: gender (women get pregnant
people who really know how to prepare for disasters. and they are given pre-natal, maternal, day care benefits). Can
a man ask to be given the same thing? NO.
- Now there is proposal to CENTRALIZE disaster management o Can you demand that men be given time to watch
like in the US. But even with that, it will still be difficult because women breastfeed? NO. It will be unreasonable as
there is no basis for that.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 10 - Bantay


- GUARANTEE: you will be treated the same as the one who are
in similar situations.
- Applies to everything.
SUMMARY: - Example: Congress passed a law that penalizes all people
wearing blue. What is the test of substantial due process?
1. Striking the balance: rights (life, liberty and property) and o PURPOSE: to distinguish the enemies from Filipinos.
power (inherent powers or species of the inherent powers of o MEANS: For Filipinos not to wear blue. IF THE
the State). PENALTY IS DEATH (either be shot dead and
2. GUARANTEE: due process and equal protection. prosecuted) IMMEDIATELY. NO. If there will still be a
determination first of the intention of the law breaker
DUE PROCESS: and will just be imprisoned, YES.
- Bawal umihi dito, BITAY: the means is disproportionate to the
- Deprivation of rights means LIMITATION. purpose so NOT VALID.
- Everything else comes from jurisprudence. - That looks good in paper. Simple as it may seem, the
application will have some nuances. We have to take into
consideration some socio-historical and legal political context.
SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL

RUBI VS. PROV. BOARD OF MINDORO: how the framework that we


MECHANISM: legislation (passed MECHANISM: adjudication
have can actually be perverted.
by Congress, Sangguinian, (judicial or quasi-judicial).
administrative rules and - The challenge is against a legislation.
regulations).
- LEGISLATION: SEC. 2145 of the Admin. Code: Manguianes
were placed in a reservation and it provided for penalties with a
corresponding deprivation of liberty for violation of the
Legislative component. Judicial and quasi-judicial subsequent ordinance.
component. - Habeas corpus: to question the legality of the detention.
- CHALLENGE 1. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (persons are
required to relocate and are penalized for leaving without
SUBSTATIAL DUE PROCESS IN PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS permission): NOT VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.
THE LAW: IN JUDCIAL PROCEEDING: - How did the Court justify such? EXERCISE OF POLICE
POWER.
1. There must be a valid 1. Informed of the nature: - CLASSIFICATION: Christians vs. Non-Christians in the context
law upon which it is NOTICE. of the degree of CIVILIZATION.
based. 2. Right to answer. - WHAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY THEY WERE PUT IN
2. The law must have 3. Informed of the THE RESERVATION? So that the land can now be used for
been passed or evidences against agriculture purposes. There was no concept yet of ancestral
approved to accomplish them. To present your domain and of the environment. Government at that time was
a valid government own evidence. encouraging people from lowlands to migrate to
objective. 4. That the decision must underdeveloped areas.
3. The objective must be be based from facts or o MINDORO: you can divide it into areas which are
pursued in a lawful evidence. occupied by different groups of Manguianes (8). Their
manner. 5. The body that should lifestyle is nomadic (hunter and gathering).
4. The law as well as the impose judgment must o If all the Manguines will be confined to specific places
means to accomplish be impartial. for their lands to be used for agricultural purposes.
the objective must be o It’s not because we long Manguianes.
valid and not o The reality is that they are occupying land and land is a
oppressive. valuable resource.
o Land is to be transformed to income.
o SOLUTION: put them in reservations. But it must be
WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK legally justified.
FOR: REASONABLENESS OF FOR: NOTICE and HEARING - THEORY OF THE COURT: American Government came up
THE PURPOSE and the MEANS. with a scheme.
- Framework seems to benign to justify something intrinsically
unjust.
VALID if BOTH reasonable and - PURPOSE: to protect the Manguianes from exploitation.
lawful. - MEANS: put them in a place where they can be protected and
prevent them from going out so they will be protected.
- REASONABLE PURPOSE + REASONABLE MEANS = the law
APPLICATION: question of laws. APPLICATION: questions the by itself was used to defeat rights.
application of the law. - NOW: since then, we had the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
- Ordinarily, we will International Law has adopted a different stand for indigenous
attack the law. people. They are not vulnerable in such a way that they need
benevolent assimilation (Little Brown Brothers).
o Logical, MAYBE. Reasonable, NO.
YNOT VS. IAC: sometimes the law itself will fall into play the - LAW IS CONTEXTUAL: Ermita vs. Whitelight.
procedural process issue when the law itself provides for the - We can now see why at the turn of the century that the Little
procedure. Brown Brother argument was acceptable but now, it is not.

WHITELIGHT: the purpose was valid but the means was not (short-
time not allowed; how does that relate to preventing crimes?).

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 11 - Bantay


CORONA VS. UNITED HARBOR PPILOTS ASSOC. TANADA VS. TUVERA

- Harbour pilots whose licenses have to be RENEWED every - What does NOTICE mean? If you do not know and you escape
year. liability, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE.
- NOW: pilots (air) need to be renewed. - Art. 3 of the CC: ignorance of the law excuses no one from
- So what’s wrong with it? Due process was absent. compliance therewith. Everyone is liable even though they are
- PURPOSE: public safety→ to regulate the harbour pilots that ignorant of the law.
provide for strict licensing. - BASIC REQUIREMENT: people must have had the opportunity
o Lawful. to know. There is no actual determination if they really knew
- Why do we need harbour pilots in the first place? It is difficult to about it.
park harbour ships that can cause a lot of destruction. - MEANS: PUBLICATION of laws in general application.
- MEANS: is it reasonable? The first thing the Court has to do is - What’s the test? What should be published? LAW OF
to establish a right. While conceding there is a right, property GENERAL APPLICATION. Those that will affect the RIGHTS
right is still way down below. NEVERTHELESS, it is still a right of the people and groups in a way that their rights will be
that’s why you can invoke violation of due process. limited or that they create obligations.
o INVALID, unreasonable, arbitrary. o The exercise of power affects a right.
- PRESUMPTION: Cancellation and expiration meant you have - If it is purely internal (office order directing one of my staff to
to go through the process of application again. render overtime), it does NOT have to be published.
- REMEDY: there must be constant upgrading. - If it is NOT GENERAL in nature, the person or group the law is
- For harbour pilots, there is no presumption in their favour. directed is informed and given a copy, then there is no need to
- The license will end up like it does not mean anything. publish.
- NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MEANS AND - We are talking about the whole world and the Philipines, the
THE PURPOSE. whole of it, will be bound by the new law.
- The presumption of this RA is that there a new harbour pilots - Example: tax assessment was sent to you because of your
every year. loan assets. Does that need to be published? NO. Property
- The State exercises his power in an oppressive and in an right of an individual only, and not of the public.
unreasonable way.
- The effect of expiration is cancellation so you would have to
apply again. Here it is cancelled so you would have to undergo
the whole process again.
- EQUIVALENT: every 3 years, lawyers would have to take the ANG TIBAY VS. CIR: all you need to do is to observe the cardinal
bar exam to renew his license → exactly the point of the Court. principles of due process.

- The SC, not knowing what to do, basically copied from


American jurisprudence.
- What is the one being challenged? The jurisdiction of the CIR.
YNOT VS. IAC o Argument of Ang Tibay: CIR cannot adjudicate because
it is not really a court and allowing it to do so will violate
- LAW: prohibition of the transport of carabaos from one due process.
province or another. o They are challenging the law creating the CIR.
- Why is the petitioner challenging the law? Violative of due o That to make it perform that function will result to a
process. violation of due process.
- PURPOSE OF THE LAW: the carabaos are agricultural - Court: QUASI-JUDICIAL body (now: NLRC → under the
implements and if you kill of them, who will now plough the Department of Labor).
fields? We were not mechanized on agriculture during that o Administrative agency.
time. - Why is it essential in upholding the validity of the jurisdiction of
o To ensure agricultural productivity, implements for it will the CIR? What is the effect of that? The due process argument
be prohibited. ALL THE MORE and consolidated the jurisdiction of the CIR.
o You need to kills carabaos to eat them. - Requirement for quasi-judicial bodies: Rules of Courts are not
o Did we breed them during that time? NO. Only Erap applied as long as there is the observance of the cardinal
had established the Phil. Carabao Center (late 90s). principles. They are not required to be bound by very stringent
o BEFORE: we imported our carabaos, and now we eat rules of procedures, as long as there is compliance with
them. So what will that do to our agricultural procedural due process (NOTICE, HEARING).
productivity?
- MEANS: disallowing slaughter and transport of carabais from 1. Notice in writing.
one province to another. 2. The CHANCE to answer. He does not even have to
o INVALID. answer.
- AMENDMENT: same purpose but DIFFERENT MEANS and it 3. Evidence: no requirements on how to present evidence.
is invalid. o SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: as long as in the
o The new provision was unconstitutionally infirm. evidence, there is something in there.
o Substantive: the location of the carabaos (WON they o Not even beyond reasonable doubt and
are here or there) will not serve the purpose. preponderance of evidence.
- PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: law enforcements took the o More than a mere scintilla (glimmer).
carabaos without a prior judicial determination. There must be o As long as there is something
a probable cause first before a warrant for seizure will be o PROOF OF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
made. moral certainty (whatever way you). There is no
- Not only is here no judicial intervention, there was even no doubt in you as to the adjudicator.
justification (probable cause). o PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: evidence
- So the law itself provides itself for a violation of the procedural of the plaintiff vs. of the respondent = which is
due process. weightier.
4. Decision will be supported by facts and on the
evidence.
5. Decision-maker will be impartial.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 12 - Bantay


- CONTEXT (substantive):
- Such being the case, does the CIR have jurisdiction? YES. It 1. Congressional Pork Barrel (found in the GAA).
was not created as a court, hence it does not need to follow the 2. Presidential Pork Barrel.
Rules of Courts. And for hearings in the CIR, are the cardinal a. Malampaya
rules followed? YES, liberally used. Is there anything wrong
with the law creating the CIR? NO. As long as it is not a court b. PAGCOR (Presidential Social Funds).
of law, that already complies with the requirement. - How the court defined the context.
1. Pork-barrel system (for local purposes):
a. Lump-sum funds.
b. Discretionary.
2. Congressional pork barrel: various post-enactment
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD VS. CA control of the legislators.
3. Presidential pork barrel: no specific guidelines.
- Can they issue cease and desist orders? There is already an appropriation.
- Court of law? NO. It is under the Department of Natural
There is NO STANDRAD for the use of the
Resources. But would giving it the power to issue such order
violate due process? funds.
- PROPERTY RIGHT is affected → of the company (Solar). If funds are going to be appropriated for a public
- LEGAL ARGUMENT: DIRECT CHALLENCE OF PD 984. purpose, and these are not part of the GAA but
- Is there notice and hearing? YES. a continuing appropriation, so that there is no
- The analysis is WON there is a violation of procedural due violation of separation of powers and there is no
process. NO.
undue delegation of power, there must be a
- There is notice and they went to the company to take samples.
After the results were made known, they went back to the STANDARD.
company and they gave the company time to do something Otherwise, the Congress has relinquished its
about it. power to legislate.
- They had to examine twice after telling them of the situation, WHAT IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF
did they do something about it? APPROPRIATION?
- HEARING: yes, within so many days after the issuance of the The people are deciding how to use their money
CDO.
through their representatives.
- It will be moot and academic if they would have to wait for the
court to decide on it. How the money is going to be spent becomes a
- The question is not so much about the issuance of the CDO, COLLECTIVE DECISION of the people.
the question is he PROCEDURE. Does it allow notice and Can that collective decision of the people be
hearing? IF no, then it will be invalid. delegated? GENERALLY, NO. But there are
instances of a valid delegation when the people
had set for standards on the exercise of that
particular power.
DEC. 07, 2013 ROLE OF EXECUTIVE: implement the GAA
only.
CASE OF BELGICA: 1st hour.
Why can’t Congress just appropriate a lump-
sum? Why can’t we give the whole three trillion
- Important case because it hinges the whole idea of district
pesos for that particular item? ISSUE OF
representation.
ACCOUNTABILITY. Public office is a public
- The expectation is for district representatives is that they will
trust.
not just represent their district in deliberations of bills and also
- The analysis was completely different in PHILCONSA because
to attend to the material needs of their respective district.
they did not even try to define the Pork Barrel System and just
o People were lining up every weekend, asking for
looked straight away in that particular provision in the 2004
assistance for practically everything.
GAA.
- Created a lot of pressure as far as legislators are concerned.
- Here, before the SC went to the analysis, defined the terms
- They must also deliver infrastructure projects.
that were the basis of the analysis.
- PROVIDED TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THROUGH PROVISIONS
- “Lump-sum”; “discretionary”.
(general legislation of the GAA).
- ISSUES (Congress and President):
- NAPOLES AFFAIR: when it is now within the discretion of
1. Seperation of power (WON there has been usurpation
particular officials and there is minimal or no accountability, the
of power).
probability of misuse and abuse is very high.
o The Court did not even go to
o People have taken a second look at the practice of
o USURPATION: if it used power belonging to
PORK BARREL.
another branch; if they allow the other branch to
- 3 previous cases (PHILCONSA, LAMP): upheld the
exercise their power.
constitutionality of PDAF.
- NOW: SC has come up with a different analysis with a different
conclusion. NO. 2 Legislators actually identify the projects to be financed
o Changes of the composition of the justices in the SC. under the PDAF.
- Now there are moves in the HOR to impeach the justices due
to flip-flopping.
- When the SC realized that they commit an error, they try to NO. 3 Identification of projects by legislatures is mandatory on
correct it. the executive.

BERNABE: main decision.


NO. 4 Requires “favourable endorsement” (CATEGORICAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 13 - Bantay


APPROVAL) of the Congressional Committees in case It happens AFTER the budget has been
of any revision or modification → VETO. approved.
3. Checks and balance: item veto of the President.
“Funds” of the PDAF. Other Congressmen are o Item: appropriation of a specific expenditure.
borrowing from one another so it can get more for
DepEd and getting less from DPWH. o Why is there a violation here? Because there is
no “item” to veto actually.
- They have to be the traffic center: needs to go o It took away the power of the President to do in
to the Committees (walang lamangan). item veto for those covered by the PDAF. It
prevented a line-item veto for the items in the
PDAF.
NO. 5 All requests for release of funds shall be favourably 4. Accountability.
endorsed by Congressional Committees.
o There is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
DBM Cir. 547: required written endorsement of the o Sec. 14 of Art. VI: financial interest.
Speaker or Senate President + favourable o Court said that there is a financial interest in the
endorsement. passing of the PDAF, GAA. Assumed that all
legislators are like that.
o The Court, without taking judicial notice: every
oTHERE IS A VIOLATION OF SEPERATION OF project, legislators make money.
POWERS: Congress was usurping the power of 5. Political dynasties: NON-ISSUE.
the Executive. Congress was exercising a o NO BASIS.
power of the Executive. 6. Local autonomy.
o POWER OF OVERSIGHT: the only power it can o Local development councils: to set the
exercise through legislative inquiry or to call the development priorities of that particular area.
ordinary committee hearing to explain how they Where we should build a road?
are progressing with their projects. o What happens in the PDAF. It renders them
o Did one branch go beyond its boundary? YES. nugatory. The money that should be allocated
Congress exercises power than under the for the regions which is to fund development,
constitution are powers of the executive. were not reach the area. Rather, the money will
o Who makes the proposal? THE PRESIDENT, be spent in accordance with the whimsical
but for PDAF, it is the legislator. WHY? Their choices of the legislators.
concurrence of the project is mandatory.
o Can Congress realign after the approval of the PRESIDENTIAL PORK BARREL:
GAA? POWER TO ALIGN IN
INTRADEPARTMENTS. - The Court is sided on what theory? UNDUE DELEGATION.
2. WON there has been an undue delegation. YES. - This is an appropriation based on a REVOLVING FUND. It is
o LEGISLATION: delegation is prohibited? NO. replenished. There is a revenue-generating mechanism so the
o When is it impermissible or undue delegation of fund is continuously replenished.
power? The legislation is an undue delegation - If that is the case, how will you provide for an appropriation? IT
of power. If there is no law, then that is SHOULD BE IN THE LAW IN ITSELF, not the GAA.
usurpation. - “Continuing legislation.”
o When the law is NOT COMPLETE. - What is the role of the President?
o What is the content of the law? Why is it an - MALAMPAYA: royalties, taxes are the sources of the fund.
undue delegation? It set for the delegation o Provided for in the Constitutional provision on
without providing for the standards. exploitation of natural resources.
o COMPLETE: there must be delegation and - PAGCOR: earnings from the casinos are the sources.
standards. - What are going to examine? THE LAW in the context of its
o Why are the standards important? If there are COMPLETENESS. WON the law is complete.
standards, then it is still within the legislative’s - Does it provide for an appropriation? YES. But since it is a
power. If it does not provide with standards, revolving fund, then as to the specific expenditures, that would
then the other branch will be exercising that now have to be delegated. That is dangerous. That’s why the
power (transfer of power through delegation). requirement is for that something to be complete, it must not
o The power still stays in the legislature. It just just provide for delegation, but also for STANDARDS
gave the other branch to fix the other details of (LIMITATIONS).
implementation. - MALAMPAYA: energy resource development and exploitation
o INTRA-DEPARTMENT DELEGATION: all within of the government, and as such other purposes that may
the legislative branch. May the decision-making hereafter be directed by the President.
be delegated within the particular department? o It provides for a standard, yes. Isn’t that delimited
Another category of delegation. enough? YES.
Cannot be allowed. Cannot even be o The next clause → effect: opens the door for everything
cured by providing for standards. that the President can possibly think of.
o WHAT WAS UNDULY DELIGATION: o As far as the first part is concerned, it is COMPLETE.
delegation within the branch; INTRABRACH That is valid.
DELEGATION; to identify the expenditure. o When it now goes to the exist clause, that in effect
There is just a lump-sum without knowing how it provides the President of untrammelled discretion on
will be spent for. how to spend the money.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 14 - Bantay


o Ejustem generis: there is NO ENUMERATION. There is not bound by the findings and recommendations of the hearing
only one enumeration. If there are three, then you can officer.
determine the limits set by Congress. The second - It does not necessary mean that the person who conducted the
clause, you cannot determine the limit. hearing is the same one who will decide on the case: ONLY A
RECOMMENDATION.
o Why is NOT THE WHOLE LAW unconstitutional? - Is the right to appeal a requirement for due process? (NUNEZ
Principle of seperability. Only the offending provision VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: SC directly and will only rule on
will be excised. questions of law). They are saying that there must be another
- PAGCOR: “calamity” is too broad. Has no standard at all. court that will answer questions of facts. BUT THERE IS NO
o It is practically anything. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. It is not one of the rights
o How did the Court treat the PAGCOR fund? guaranteed. The law itself provides for its procedures. The SC
is not completely deprive of discretion in order to review, revise
Contingency fund. They are allowed. It is something
or modify of the Sandiganbayan (CFI).
that you have to prepare for but hope will not happen. If
it something that definitely can happen, that is a subject
of legislation.
Standby fund. - Speedy disposition of cases: how long it takes to decide on
Calamity fund for LGUs (certain percentage cases (ONG).
which is always set aside). - Do the requirements of due process apply on schools (private
o Treating that second purpose for calamities as a valid schools).
appropriation is in the same nature of providing a
contingency fund.
o “Priority infrastructure development projects” – it has to NON VS. DAMES
be programmed → need for an appropriation of the
Congress. - Administrative and procedural due process: is it applicable to
Even if it is a PAGCOR fund, can the Congress private schools?
- There was a demonstration going against the increase of
still set guidelines? YES. If it really is a
tuition fees.
development fund, there should be a program. - PRIVATE SCHOOL: some students are expelled from school.
o UNDUE delegation of the power of the Congress to the - ISSUE: Do they (students) have rights? YES. Students do not
President. shed their rights when they enter the school gates. This applies
even when they are in private schools.
SEPARATE OPINION: - What is their right? Right to finish your degree program once
enrolled. GENERAL: right to education.
- Argument of the schools: the nature of enrolment is
- CARPIO: he agreed with everything but he wanted to add
CONTRACTUAL. Academic freedom.
something more. - If it is purely contractual, then the student has to look for their
o The idea of the “lump-sum.” own school next semester.
o GENERAL STATEMENT: LUMP-SUMS of any sort will - It is not just a mere contract.
be abused. - Can the school deprive you of the right for the succeeding
Sereno said you cannot at this point say. It’s a semesters or school year? YES. Only if there is due process.
criminal issue. - SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: you can only be denied re-
enrolment for just cause. You must also be first given the
o Concentrated on government line agencies.
chance to be heard.
o SERENO: this is not the proper case to talk about that. - The school expelled them. Can they be expelled for rallying?
The issue now is the PORK BARREL. NO. That will violate freedom of speech and peaceable
o COA’s job to determine if it has been unlawfully used. assembly.
o Court: PDAF is discretionary and lump-sum. - SCHOOL: students were academically deficient. Is it a just
o What he was writing was going to be part of his cause? YES. BUT were the students given due process before
separate opinion in the DAP cases. they were expelled? NO.
- The Court was invoking just cause.
o BRION concurred.
- Was there even any pretext of an academic deficiency?
- LEONEN: laying the basis for the DAP. Is there any particular THERE WAS NONE. They were not even given notice and a
provision of law being questioned? NONE. chance to be heard.
- Court: you allege they were academically deficient, but where
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS is the record?
- Students enjoyed a particular right and the right must not be
- As a rule, while the rules on due process in criminal cases is infringed without due process. They cannot be arbitrarily
deprived of their right to enrol to another semester.
very strict, in administrative cases, they do not adhere to
- Everything must be provided in a manual to know if any action
technical rules of procedures. constitutes a violation of it. They must also be given a chance
- There is still requirement of notice and hearing. to present their case. There must be a showing that they failed
to meet the academic requirements.
- MALABANAN: protesting the merger of the colleges. Students
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR rallied in the quadrangle. They disrupted classes. All of them
were dismissed. CJ Fernando said they have rights. Before
- 4 cardinal rules: they can be expelled, they would have to be afforded due
1. Hearing. process. SC added another requirement: there must be
2. Must be given chance to provide evidence. proportionality between the offense and the penalty imposed.
3. Decision must be decided based on substantial The proper penalty would have been SUSPENSION.
evidence. - ALCUAZ VS. PSBA: you just can’t deprive students their right
4. Tribunal must be impartial. to finish their courses.
- The decision still lies at the head of the agencies. The head is

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 15 - Bantay


- The constitution in Art. 3, Sec. 1: second part: equal protection
clause.
There is SUBSTANTIVE due process, which is basically looking at the - Equal protection goes hand in hand with due process.
law and relation, reasonableness of thereof. - Often times, you will see both as the bases for challenging a
particular legislation.
PROCEDURAL: notice and hearing: applies outside, not just - Sometimes, due process is entangled with equal protection.
administrative or judicial cases. - Substantive (reasonableness) and procedural due process.
o Reasonableness of treating one group from another.
What if your parents forbade you to go out after your classes? Is there o Distinctions.
a violation of due process? NONE. - There is a commonality between equal protection and due
process and it has to do with DISTINCTIONS.
- Do the rules apply? NO. What rules will apply? Family Code, - The test of distinctions is WON in making that distinction, such
RA 9262, RPC (illegal detention). is reasonable (germane and considerable considering the
- They have parental authority over you. circumstances).
- It is only if they lock you up then that will be serious illegal - RUBI: due process component; brought into play equal
detention. protection component also.
- When your husband forbids you to go to law school. Violation? - That’s the reason why when the law says due process, it also
YES. RA 9262. talks equal protection in the same provision.
- LIBERTY means a whole parity of rights. We are talking about - CONTEXT: of rights, limitations / denial of a certain rights of a
a specific right. Due process is in relation to you being deprived certain group.
to life, liberty and property. - We talk of limitations of certain rights. that’s the reason why we
- The first thing you need to look at is the right and what it talk of due process and equal protection in that same context.
entails. - When we become constitutional lawyers, when you file
- “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without petitions questioning a constitutionality of an ordinance or a
due process of law.” law, when you say equal protection, never forget to raise the
issue of substantive due process.
EQUAL PROTECTION: all persons or things similarly must be similarly o You can talk about due process without calling into play
treated both as to rights conferred and responsibility imposed. equal protection.
- What does equal protection mean?
- “PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF WHOM” – we are NOT - Four requisites: SECOND (germane): seems to limit the inquiry
talking about equality. within the confines of the particular law.
- REQUIREMENT: reasonable classification. o If there is an RA, we have to take a look at those
- Those of are at the same class shall be treated on the same distinctions and hence the issue of EP and DP only in
way. that particular RA.
o All children should be treated the same way.
o All disabled children should be treated the same way.
- Does that mean we can make distinctions? YES, as long as CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOC vs. BSP
they are valid.
- Affirmative action: NOT a violation of equal protection (i.e. - Another perspective on how to contextualize the EP argument.
indigenous people). - The SC went beyond the RA being questioned and looked at
- REQUISITES: the RA In the context of all other RAs of the same categories /
effect.
1. REASONABLE: based on substantial distinction that
- RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY: compare the RA to the
makes for real differences. other RAs creating other GFIs.
o You can only find out if there is substantial - WHAT IS BEING CHALLEGED: Sec. 15(c): what is it all about?
distinction if you know what the PURPOSE is. A distinction between officers and RAF as to their salaries.
o ANG LADLAD: historical discrimination and they - What is this distinction provided for? All officers are exempted
are preferred to be he representatives. from the Salary Standardization Law, while the RAFs are not.
- Hence, the officers can be offered rates that are competitive to
2. GERMANE to the purposes of the law.
the private sectors.
o Then you are going to test would really serve he - Isn’t that discriminatory? NO.
purpose. - Is there a valid distinction between officers and RAF
o Those who will want to provide medical care for employees? YES.
the people (UP Med: 50-50). Males are more Same distinction with the private sector, actually.
dispassionate; kids are more comfortable to It’s the RESPONSIBILITY. Officers make decisions.
female paediatricians. When they make the wrong decisions, they can be
3. Not limited to existing conditions only. kicked out.
There is no just cause.
4. Equally applicable to all members of the same lass.
Management will just say: loss of confidence.
- All of these will not operate in a vacuum. They only apply when
BAD DECISION: one that will result to loss of profit or
you know what the purpose of the legislation. income.
That’s why this people are only useful if they bring in
DEC. 14, 2013 money.
The RAFs DO NOT have to bring the money. They just
EQUAL PROTECTION do clerical tasks. They are not concerned with the profit
reliability of the banks.
- Elements of equal protection. The OFFICERS OF THE BANK are evaluated to
performance = pesos and dollars.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 16 - Bantay


Does that apply to Central Bank? YES. It is supposed - Why are they complaining? Other branches retained their
to general income. franking privileges.
They need to regulate the banking industry and that the - Why did postmaster revoke the franking privileges? The Phil.
RP is financially stable by managing the foreign Postal Corporation was losing profit. So much is eaten up by
reserves of the Philippines. the Judicial Branch.
We need to have surplus of the foreign reserves. - If the Judiciary will pay, they will finally make money.
- TWO-STEP NALYSIS: - Ordinary people are not sending correspondents by mail. Only
1. Distinction within the RA. those using are government agencies and they do not pay.
2. Look at the RA In relation to other RAs governing GFIs. - Franking privileges of legislators: to tell their constituents an
- Is that germane? YES. Will that apply now and in the future? “ulat ng bayan.”
YES. Do they treat the people on the same class the same? - The Courts mail everything! Why? Because of procedural due
YES. process. Notice is required for everything.
- THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION but SC - Business-wise, there is a basis for withdrawing the franking
cannot turn a blind eye to the universe of GFIs. privileges of the Court.
- Other GFIs who are supposed to make money: PDIC, GSIS, - Problematic: NO VALID DISTINCTION. Legally and
LBP, DBP, SSS. constitutionally, can you make a distinction? NO VALID ONE.
- The national government is actually subsidizing the GFIs but - Why are franking privileges given? OBJECTIVE OF A
that is a matter of policy. FRANKING PRIVILEGE? To expedite communication between
- It is the Congress exempting everyone in those GFIs = government and people, and where is that more needed? In
MATTER OF POLICY. That is something for the Congress to the judicial branch.
determine.
- SSL IS AN RA. If Congress can create it, they can create
exemptions: ALL EMPLOYEES OF GFIs. And the Court cannot
inquire to such.
- That’s the reason why Congress, last year, created a body to ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ
oversee GOCCs because it seemed that the primary business
of GOCCs is for its officials to get many perks irrespective of - Chinese retailers → questioning the Retail Trade
PROFITABILITY. Nationalization Law.
- Congress CANNOT TAKE IT BACK = vested right. Once you - After the lapse of grace period, all retail outlets are to be owned
exempt, it’s already vested. by Filipino → to break the stranglehold of the Chinese to the
- What’s the only option of the Court? SC: if you look at the RA, monopoly of the retail business.
there’s no violation but then, considering what Congress has 1. Bookkeeping Law: cannot keep bookkeeping if not in
done to all other GFIs, it is enough that we confine our inquiry English, Spanish and Filipino.
to that RA creating the Banko Central. 2. Anti-Alias Law: required everyone to register their name
We have to look at all the RAs creating other GFIs. and their alias (family name + surname).
- Court: looked at the Cebntral Bank vis-à-vis other GFIs. Is - All of these three laws were enacted to break the stranglehold
there a valid distinction? NONE. of the Chinese in Philippine trade and commerce.
In a class of one (CB) and of the many (GFIs). - Would this violate equal protection? Petitioner said the law
Using the same framework, but enlarging the universe. singles out foreigners, specifically Chinese.
While there is no violation, once we put the CB in the - Filipinos can, foreigners cannot.
context of the whole universe of GFIs, we will see that - VALID SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION because of the loyalty
the distinction was made WITHOUT reasonable basis, and allegiance of the Filipinos.
resulting in discrimination. - If you are a foreigner and you make money, your country, not
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION. the Philippines, will benefit.
- Will you now create a separate class? NO, they are similarly - Purpose of the law: FOR THE MONEY TO STAY IN THE RP
situated. AND TO GET REINVESTED THERE.
- RA 7907 + 8282 + 8289 + 8291 + 8523 + 8763 + 9302 = - Do you want your retail trade to the hands of those who are not
consequential unconstitutionality of challenged proviso. loyal to you? NO. Same reason as exploitation of national
- SUMMARY: looking on all those RAs, is there a valid resources and real estate.
substantial classification? THERE IS NONE? - Court: THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
- But all of these RAs were issued AFTER the RA creating CB because there is a valid distinction between foreigners and
was enacted. So what is he Court supposed to do in that RA? If Filipinos.
Court will validate it, it will be applicable it to all GFIs.
- JUDICIAL LEGISLATION: exempted everyone from the SSL →
IMPLIED CHANGE IN THEIR INTENTION.
- DECLARED POLICY: all employees of GFIs should be exempt.
- Without a law, Congress should be deemed to have the DUMLAO VS. COMELEC
intention of exempting them.
- By so declaring that policy, the Court did not amend the CB - Is there a distinction between those over 65 and those who are
Law. The Court just interpreted the policy announced in the younger, as far as the Omnibus Election Code is concerned?
subsequent laws = NO VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF - Government retirees can no longer run for public office.
POWERS. Not the same as People vs. Ritter (Court blamed - Dumlao wants to run and the COMELEC said he was too old.
the Congress for not passing a law). - Will a distinction as to public office as regards to age be a valid
- The fact that Congress did not challenge the decision, implies distinction? YES.
that it indeed intended to do so → deliver fairness and justice - The Election Law provides for age classification, is that valid?
at the earliest possible time. YES.
- Why disqualifying over 65 valid? OBJECTIVE: to encourage
younger people to run. But does that mean that those over 65
are incompetent? NO. It has to do with younger people.
WHY? Younger people are excluded for the political
PHIL. JUDGES ASSOC. VS. PARDO process.
That’s why there is a lot of dissention
- Removal of franking privileges of the SC. (counterproductive).

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 17 - Bantay


- Why is there an age classification for being a President?
DISCERNMENT (experiential). There is a certain level of - What is the context of the claim of the religious people here? It
wisdom that needs to be attained through age. The President was a closed shop agreement.
to be the head of state, he must have a certain kind of - To remain employed, you have to be a member of the union.
“discernment.” - Why does the law allow closed shopped agreements? Very
common in the US. The objective is to protect employees from
unfair labor practices. An employer also wants that because it
provides stability. It’s mutually beneficial.
- The religion of the employees has been invoked as an
ANG LADLAD VS. COMELEC exception of a closed shop agreement. The old labor law
recognized that exemption: religious exemption from
- COMELEC made a determination that Ang Ladlad cannot be compulsory membership for a closed shop agreement.
considered a political party because of IMMORALITY. - Wouldn’t such exemption be violative of equal protection
- The reason why Ang Ladlad is running is to advocate for because apparently now, members of a religion are being
change (same as for women’s, jeepney drivers’). favoured?
- The COMELEC made a determination based on moral - Is that a violation of equal protection? NO. Why not? All
grounds: it’s having sex with a person of the same sex = employees should be treated in the same way so why would a
immoral (COMELEC) religion exemption be violative of equal protection? Why is it a
- Court: there is no law that prohibits such. valid distinction?
- In other countries, there is a law. In the RP, there is no law. In - What is your universe here? OBJECTIVE: INDUSTRIAL
the absence of a law, can the COMELEC make a PEACE; to maintain labor and harmony in the labor front.
determination that such conduct is immoral? NO. - What distinctions are allowed in labor relations? Management,
Court: it is no longer prohibited, it is actually being technical → classification based on function.
accepted. - Management vs. RAF: valid distinction; Technical vs. RAF:
valid distinction.
The Court can actually invalidate a marriage if there
- Would a distinction based on religion be valid?
has not been sex between couples.
- CONTEXT: If you are a Catholic, and you refuse to join a
- If you invoke religious books → VIOLATION OF
union, you will be fired. But if you are a member of INC, you are
CONSTITUTION: of the separation of the State and the
allowed not to join a union. Is that valid? YES (the whole idea
Church.
of freedom of religion).
- DIFFERENT KIND OF CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION:
- Who’s going to make the distinction between one religion and
from an international law which is deemed to be part of the law
another?
of the land through the incorporation clause.
- Employment → PROPERTY. Religion → LIBERTY; a preferred
- Equal protection = non-discrimination.
right.
- Why would disqualifying Ang Ladlad be a violation of equal
- Does it matter what your religion is as far as labor relations?
protection in an international law perspective?
NO. But that has to be respected by the State, unless it is
- ANG LADLAD: they are marginalized and underrepresented.
shown to be contrary to public policy.
- NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX.
- YES, it may result in benefits that are merely incidental with the
- Sec. 25, ICCPR: every citizen shall have the right and the
respect accorded to a specific religion.
opportunity, without any of the distinctions.
- Courts CANNOT inquire into why religions require their
- They’re marginalized and underrepresented because the
members not to be part of a union.
society is shunning them so ALL THE MORE REASON FOR
THEM TO BE GRANTED accreditation.
- BUT they did not win :P

TATAD VS. SEC. DEPT OF ENERGY

- Can we apply equal protection in business? YES.


ARCIA VS. DRILON
- Oil Deregulation Law: 1) tariff differentiation; 2) requirement for
inventory.
- Someone was issued a TPO and is claiming that it was
1. Imported finished / refined product: 7%
violative of equal protection.
2. Imported crude oil: 3%
- Garcia: men are being discriminated; women are being
- PURPOSE OF THE LAW: to encourage setting up of refineries
favoured in RA 9262. They are the ones only being protected
here.
by the law, and not men being abused by their partners, as
- If you are going to import, you must have an inventory of a
well.
certain number of days.
- Will that by itself make RA 9262 unconstitutional?
- Challenged by new and small players by invoking equal
- ANALYSIS (CLASSICAL):
protection. Why? It implementation, petitioners think that it will
1. Distinction: YES, substantial; women are prone to
favour big companies. IT FAVORS VERTICAL INTEGRATION.
victimization.
- Competition Law: it means all aspects will now be in the control
They are more vulnerable including their
of the big companies.
children.
- Where does the raw material coming from? ABROAD, from the
By looking at the statistics. oil firms of the Big Three. Everything from exploration to
2. Germane: YES production to shipping to retailing, are part of that integration.
3. Not limited to existing conditions: YES. As the big ones, they can now engage in predatory pricing and
4. Apply equally to all members: YES, women who are in can price their products that no one can actually compete with
relationships. them.
- The RA is constitutional for it is borne out of the substantial - Kaya vertical: they control EVERYTHING, not just the retail
distinction brought out by the vulnerability of women. outlets (horizontal) → it keeps the oligopoly.
- They won’t be able to complete.
- Test: the law in effect made a distinction between new ones
and old and established one.
- PURPOSE: to lower prices to bring in new players: NOT
VICTORIANO VS. ELIZARDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION (religion) GERMANE. It’s the complete opposite.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 18 - Bantay


- What the law did is actually to discriminate against actual - If you compare the numbers, the number of searches pursuant
players. to warrant is very small and very rare. Oftentimes, searches are
- ANOTHER WAY OF ANALYZING: actual application because being done without a warrant under any of the ”excuses.”
on its face, it might not look unconstitutional. The effect might o ONLY STONEHILL and BURGOS.
be the reverse of the intent.
- Deregulating the oil industry must be done by utmost caution, - What happens when the person agrees with the search, is he
case in point, the case at bar. deemed to have consented to the search? NO.
o The consent must be done with KNOWLEDGE and with
FULL VOLITION.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES


STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
- Specific rights: right to life, liberty and property cannot be
deprived or limited without due process and equal protection. 1. The crime: RPC, Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue Code.
o PRIVACY.
2. The things: in the case at bar, everything, except furniture.
- Technical = unreasonable searches and seizures (Rule 126). 3. The place.
- GENERAL RULE: the state can search and seize without a
WARRANT. - What’s wrong with the determination of crime? Cannot possibly
- WARRANT: judge order: establish a probable cause.
1. Probable cause of an alleged crime. - PROBABLE CAUSE: such reasons, supported by facts and
circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that
2. Things: subject of the crime; the instruments used in
his actions and the means in presenting it, are legally just and
the crime; the fruits of the crime. proper.
o Crime against property: subject: thing taken. - KEY: statement of what the crime was.
Instrument: what was used to get it; fruits: the Search warrants: how can you connect the things to the
profits that you got from the taking. crime when you do not know what the crime is?
3. The place – place where those things can be found. The only way you can determine the relationship with
- Addressed to police officers (for 10 days). the things with the crime is if you know what the crime
- Police officers must report back to the court what they had is.
- There was NO SPECIFICATION so you cannot possibly
seized and will be deemed to be in the custody of the court.
connect the things with the crime.
o Once an inventory was provided: under judicial custody - How does anything and everything relate to the crime? WE DO
(public property). NOT KNOW.
o Vulnerable ti misappropriation. - What’s the real story here? It was alleged that Stonehill has a
o Considered as evidence. little black book with the names of the officials and how much
- How is the search to be conducted? he pays them, including the highest officials of the state.
1. Notice. - “Fishing expedition”: the rule before was anything used can be
used against the accused (Moncado rule).
2. Witness (owner, barangay). - The US has recently changed the rules because the Moncado
3. Day time (except under exceptional circumstances). rule was based on the US jurisprudence. Common law cause
- WHEN WARRANT IS NOT NEEDED (People vs. Aruta): of actions against damages against those who would violate
1. Search pursuant to a valid arrest. the law is not actually effective. Police officers were just either
2. Plain-view doctrine. inventing things in the warrant or not even getting warrants at
3. Search of a moving vehicle. all. There was a common law actions damages (relief found in
Art. 32 of the CC). Despite this, police officers are not
4. Check point.
respecting that right and this were being admitted by the
5. Consented search – SM megamalls. Courts.
6. Custom search. - The lawyers of the petitions are the precursors of the modern
7. Stop and frisk. day law firms in the Philippines so you can see why this case is
8. Exigent and emergency circumstances. very pivotal in constitutional (signalled a change in
- What does the Constitution says for the right to unreasonable jurisprudence; the opportunity of revising it) and political history
searches and seizures for it to be protected and respected? (Stonehill fled and his assets were taken over by …).
- Because of this, the ruling in Stonehill became a paragraph in
Sec. 2.
the Constitution (1973, 1987) for privacy of communication and
o Constitution provided for a mechanism. search and seizures.
o CONTROL MECHANISM: EXCLUSION OF ILLEGALY - IMPORTANT CASE: the ruling is now part of the Constitution.
OBTAINED EVIDENCE.
Inadmissible as evidences.
Even if the prosecution presents it, the judge
should not admit it as evidence.
Can that be waived by the accused? YES, if he BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF
did not question the legality of the search.
- What’s wrong with the warrant?
“The fruit of the poisoned tree.”
1. Crime: YES, subversion (PD).
Poisoned tree: search. The act of subverting; as overthrowing or
Fruit: evidence. destroying a legally constituted government
If the search is unlawful, then the evidence 2. Things: everything is not related to the crime.
cannot be considered. Newspapers, motorcycles, typewriters.
Motion to quash based on the illegality of the It has nothing to do with the membership.
search. If they have stated the propaganda material for
CCP.
o Technical matters.
What is the relationship between the crime and

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 19 - Bantay


the things? NONE. such real evidence is excluded, there is no other evidence
- Actually, the only purpose is to shut down the newspaper as it against the accused, hence, there is reasonable doubt →
was critical against the government. accused should be acquitted.
- DURING MARTIAL LAW. The judge would have signed - SC has provided for 7 (8?) general exceptions for requirement
everything. of a warrant for a search and seizure:
- PROBABLE CAUSE: establishing the relationship of the crimes 1. Consented search.
and the things and the places. 2. Plain view doctrine.
3. In checkpoints.
4. Warrantless search pursuant to a warrantless arrest.
5. Searching of moving vehicles.
DEC. 21, 2013 6. Custom searches.
7. Stop and frisk.
8. Emergency and extingency.
PRIVACY
- Provided the standards based on the decisions of the SC and
we will see the combination of many of these in each of the
- IN GENERAL: the right to be left alone. different pages.
- SPECIFICALLY: one’s home. - If the exception cannot be established, the evidence is
o Was enshrined in the Constitution of the US in the 4th inadmissible and in the absence of that evidence, there is
Amendment. reasonable doubt → CRIMINAL CASE.
- COMMUNICATION: how to enforce it STONEHILL VS.
DIOKNO)
o Exclusionary rule.
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: extended to privacy of one’s person.
PEOPLE VS. MARTI
o Protecting one’s person from being searched.
o Terry vs. Ohio: mentioned in the commentaries. - They want to send a package outside the country.
o Aspect of liberty: that’s why the framework can be - Reyes opened the package because it is an SOP to do so →
found in due process. he bears the forwarding company if there is a violation of
- For all of these, the court has developed certain tests. We have Customs and Tariff Laws (courier).
concepts like probable cause (to protect privacy along those - When they opened, they found dried marijuana leaves and they
brought to NBI for testing.
lines → judicially developed concept).
- Marti was charged under the Dangerous Drugs Laws.
o Presupposes an independent judge that can determine - HIS ARUGMENT: the search was illegal. It seems to be a
if there was a sufficient basis using the prima facie logical argument. Was the search without a warrant within one
evidences to justify an INTRUSION. of the established exceptions? It is not consented, it is not a
- All of these are actually tied together: CONTEXT protecting Custom search.
the integrity of person whether it be in his person, in his - FLAW ARGUMENT: the protection is a protection against
personality, in his home, in his communications. actions of agents of the State. If it is the State who wants to
search, there should be a warrant because it is a check to
o Home will include all of his papers and effects.
prevent and abuse (the judge’s findings).
o Provision against unreasonable searches and seizures. CONTROL MECHANISM.
- EXCLUSIONARY RULE: mechanism provided for in the 1987 - We are providing protections against the State alone. In this
Constitution and was expanded to communication. case, was there a search conducted by the agents of the
- From the cases, it will be applied to privacy of the immediate State? NONE.
person / individual (physical person). - What about the NBI? The NBI just conducted the test to
- CONTEXT: protection given by the state in the concept of a determine the material that was submitted for testing. It is the
owner who made the search.
protection against UNWARRANTED and UNREASONABLE
- If there is any action against the forwarding company, it is not
INTRUSIONS BY THE STATE. by invoking the Constitution. You only invoke it against: CIVIL
- We might say, as society becomes more complex, it’s very ACTION for damages (Art. 32) → no relation here. This is a
difficult to say that you can be left alone. That you have to be criminal case.
left alone. - There was no participation of the State: the evidence cannot be
- We are concerned more on STATE INTRUSION. It’s not based excluded.
- DOCTRINE: the protection provided for will only apply when
on congestion of the community; it is NOT interpersonal
the search is conducted by agents of the State as it is a
(exception: public figure doctrine). protection against the abuse of the case.
- OUR FOCUS: protection of the individual from unreasonable
state intrusion of his privacy.

There are certain situations where the Court (based on jurisprudence) PEOPLE VS. ARUTA
has allowed searches without warrants.
- Very specific descriptions in the case: an old woman called
- PROBLEMATIC: because standards are elastic. Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio to Olongapo aboard a
- US: 1960s → pursuant to a liberal perspective, there has been Victory Liner bus with a bag carrying marijuana.
tighter implementation that everything that is questionable will - Upon her arrival, she was crossing the street from the terminal.
result to inadmissibility of evidence. Upon looking in her bag, she was charged and arrested.
- Fortunately, in the Philippines, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE is - Is the marijuana admissible? Because the only basis of
already part of the Constitution. A whole cottage industry has conviction was its conviction. NO, IT IS NOT.
developed among lawyers in using it to the fullest. End - THEORY OF THE STATE: it was a valid (there was no enough
objective: trying to cause the acquittal of the accused based on time to get a warrant).
the inadmissibility of the primary evidence which is usually real - CIRCUMSTANCES: the information was gotten in the morning
evidence seized from the accused. The theory being that if and Aling Rosa arrived at night. The Courts were open so they

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 20 - Bantay


could have easily obtained a warrant. COMELEC gun ban checkpoint).
- Granted there was no warrant, are the exceptions present? 3. Plain view. You are only allowed to look but not to open
NOT consented because no testimonial was given for express ANYTHING. If there is something suspicious when you
and with full knowledge. NOT a valid search because she had look, it’ the thing that is suspicious. Unusual smell,
already alighted the bus (because the bus was moving). NOT bloodstains.
plain-view because it is not the bag that has to be plain-view, it US: plain smell doctrine by the canines.
is the contraband. Was it in plain-view? NO. NOT stop and frisk - You cannot be asked to get out. Only when you have a
because there was no reasonable suspicion → they already suspicious thing in plain view that you can be asked to get out.
have prior information. - DANGER: they can plant something on it.
- Consistent with BURGOS: as long as there is an appreciable - MARTI: same rules will not apply to persons not of the State.
period of time and the courts were open, and the officers could
have gotten a warrant, it will not be an exigency or an
emergency that will exempt.
- DISTIGUISHED FROM PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT: they could
not have applied a warrant because they do not know it was ANIAG VS. COMELEC
Malmstedt. They just had information that a certain foreigner
will be coming from Sagada with contraband. There are many - Was the checkpoint unconstitutional? NO. It was a COMELEC
foreigners from Sagada, the police didn’t know so they gun-ban checkpoint.
established a checkpoint; also search of a moving vehicle. - SEARCH was unconstitutional.
He was carrying a pouch that is quite unusual. - It was a moving vehicle so in conducting a search of a vehicle,
Circumstances are not present in ARUTA. it must be done using the plain-view rules.
- LOCATION OF THE GUNS: inside their cases and inside the
trunk.
- POLICEMEN ARGUMENT: they asked him to open the trunk.
- Is it then a consented search? They asked the driver. BUT
CABALLES VS. CA: Kakawati leaves. there was absence of intention to waive → NO PROOF.

- OBJECT: stolen transmission wires because it is expensive


and saleable. They are like thick cables. You can sell them
based on weight and they cost a lot. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (elements)
- Crime: theft of transmission wires.
- The leaves covered the back of the jeepney and the wires were
1. A prior intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest.
inside the sacks. The police didn’t know there were wires inside
because they are HIDDEN. 2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered.
- VALID SEARCH OF THE JEEP? NO. 3. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
- NOT CONSENTED because the person in the jeepney did not 4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further
object. Why is the failure the jeepney driver not to object not search.
tantamount to consent? There must be a clear intention to do
so. In this case, the situation is something that can intimidate WHICH COMES FIRST? ARUTA: search and seizure came first.
the person; must be VOLUNTARY. You cannot just imply that
he did not object.
- If there is a valid warrantless arrest, would that not constitute
If the environment is intimidating, can you really object?
- NOT MOVING VEHICLE because there was no reason. another exception? Search of a valid arrest and not a case of
- NOT PLAIN VIEW because the wires are not sticking out. plain-view.
- NOT CHECKPOINT because there was no checkpoint.
- NO STOP AND FRISK because it applies to persons, not to US authority (MORE LOGICAL):
vehicles.
- Will the wires be admissible as evidence? NO. 1. Law enforcements are authorized to seize.
2. The official must be in a place that he has a right to be
in.
3. The discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.
CHECKPOINTS: not one of the 7 but can there be a valid search?
4. It must readily be apparent that what the official has
discovered is evidence (subject: fruits, subject,
instruments).
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA

- Argument of VALMONTE: checkpoints per se are - It allows a search without a prior warrantless arrest.
unconstitutional.
- Court: the checkpoints are not per se unconstitutional (making STOP AND FRISK: the case of the man carrying a backpack and
it number 8). MEANING: you have to take the nature of the walking past midnight.
checkpoint to determine whether it is unconstitutional.
- Was Valmonte stopped? NO. THERE WAS NO PARTICULAR
- What is a valid stop and frisk? The key here is the STOP.
MODE OF SEARCH THAT CAN BE QUESTIONED.
- He is just a concern citizen: there is no basis to say that such - For instance, I am a police officer 3 sitting in a carinderia. Then
checkpoint is invalid. someone walks along carrying a bag. I asked him to open
- In the absence of facts that show that Valmonte had been his bag. Is that stop and frisk? NO.
stopped by Valmonte, then the Court cannot say that it is per - It is the law enforcement doing the STOPPING and the
se unconstitutional. FRISKING.
- REVERSE: there can be checkpoints which are not violative of - There is no requirement that there is a crime.
the Constitution.
- Requirement:
- WHEN ARE THEY REASONABLE (requirements):
1. It cannot be a moving checkpoint (must be fixed).
2. The authority conducting it must be made known (i.e.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 21 - Bantay


1. What must he policeman be in the performance of? He
must actually be patrolling. We are talking of the police GAANAN VS. IAC
officer.
o Consented approach, moving vehicle, plain - It was the execution of an affidavit of what the person
overheard. He was going to put on record (oral testimony or
view: we are talking of the person, not the police
written affidavit) of the things he or she heard.
officer. - They were trying to unlawfully negotiate the case.
2. What does he see? You see suspicious conduct. - HOW WAS THE COMMUNICATION OVERHEARD? Through
o When is the conduct of a person suspicious? It an extension line.
has to do with a CRIME. - If that communication was unlawfully recorded, then that
o Is someone walking at 2AM carrying a cannot be used as basis in any proceeding. Here, the attack is
knapsack engaged in suspicious conduct? NOT on the HOW. When the HOW would fall under the prohibition,
that will prevent the use of the information that as overheard.
YET.
- Does the means fall within the prohibition? NO.
o But what if you are conducting a patrol, there is - Only one of the parties knew that someone was listening.
someone carrying a backpack, and when he - It can be used as evidence. Is it because telephone extension
sees you, without you doing anything, he ran, line is not mentioned?
looking scared. Suspicious conduct? YES. - The law is strictly construed against the state or the one
o You see someone with a butt of what looks like producing the evidence.
a real gun sticking out of his side. Stop and - The parties, by using a telephone at that time, should have
known that there were extensions or party lines.
frisk? NO. Plain view.
When you use a phone, you should know that anytime,
- You stop him because of a suspicious conduct. There is no your conversation can be overheard.
need of plain view. By the nature of the apparatus used, you are deemed
to have party waived the privacy.
RA 4200: PRIVCY OF COMMUNICATION - 1960s: party-line or extension lines.
- YES, the Court is not a lien, but that is only as far as the parties
- Because of their nature, wire-taps and recordings are intrusive. concerned. They should have been fully aware of such.
- The rule is stricter than that of ordinary searches, but - Court was looking at it not just as an exclusion of the
prohibition, but also in using the instrument itself (you should
exceptions are allowed.
have been on guard that your communication is not really
- In the US, there were exceptions where a warrant is not private).
needed for the purposes of monitoring communications. The
US has a Patriot Act that will allow the government, through the
department of homeland and security, to monitor
communications. The controversy now is that the US went
beyond its borders and has tapped communications of RAMIREZ VS. CA and GARCIA
important personalities (heads of other countries), even of its
own allies. - What if you are a party of the communication.
- The employee wanted to use the communication for the
o Part of their regular intelligence gathering.
purpose of filing a case.
- Another issue: LEAKING GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS - Issue of admissibility comes in. Can you use it as evidence?
(WikiLeaks). NO.
- CONTEXT: requirements in the Human Security Act / same as - Why not? What is the logic for such prohibition? RIGHT TO
wiretapping. PRIVACY TO COMMUNICATION.
- Why can it not be used? How can you use the Constitution?
We are not even taking about the State in this case. Why can’t
RA 4200 we allow this case a recording by one to be used as evidence
in a case against the other party? What if one party started
- Anti-Wire Tapping Law: may the parties themselves authorize? saying some things and you record it?
YES. Deemed as a waiver. - It’s not a stranger recording the conversation; it was one of the
- Processes (judicial): the control mechanism is also a judicial parties (NIXON).
process. Why does it have to be a judicial process? Because it - Are communications private? YES. If he records it, HE
is so easy to tap or to record and without that judicial control WAIVES HIS RIGHT. The other person who did not DID NOT
mechanism, this will be prone to abuse. In what sense? WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The protection accorded is
Extortion, blackmail. not lost. The right is not absolute.
- If you waive, then that cannot be used. - Since there are two parties, the waiver of one does not mean
- NIXON: he himself produced the evidence of his wrong doing the loss of the right of the other. He still has that right and he
because he himself taped all of his conversations in the Oval can invoke it.
Office. So he had to be asked to step down. - WON he is a public figure or not, there was a waiver of right.
He lost his privilege. - As long as the other person did not waive his rights, the
recording cannot be used against him.
What he did was to have everything in his office
- Hayden: his recordings can be used against him. There is a
recorded so when this is recorded, he is deemed to
law, in fact, that protects victims as their consent is not
have lost his privilege and thus, they can be
obtained.
subpoenaed.
NOT THE SAME AS Chito’s case. They have not
They were made public: the evidence of wrongdoing
waived their right. They were not the one who
was very clear. He either needs to resign or be
PUBLISHED it.
impeached. He resigned.
- If you are going to record something, what should you do?
- Why the law is strict about privacy of communication.
THERE MUST BE AN EFFECTIVE WAIVER. Media person:
“for the purpose of this interview, can you please identify
yourself” → deemed to be waiving your right.
- NOTE: there is no such thing as privacy when you are

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 22 - Bantay


committing a crime.
Someone was killing his wife and someone overhears OPLE VS. TORRES
it.
- AO provided for the National Identification System. There will
be a national ID system wherein all persons who will be issued
IDs would have to provide certain personal information.
PROBLEM: what if what was recorded was for instance a case of - Why was it being challenged? Probable violation of right to
privacy. Why is it deemed unwarranted and unreasonable
sexual exploitation of children. Can that be used? YES. It was
when there are already existing systems where you are
transmitted over the Internet and it has lost its mantle of protection. required to submit personal information?
- WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ABOUT IT? Is it the gathering of the
- Paedophiles cannot complain as the Internet is public. information itself that is of doubtful itself? NO.
- SC:
CCTV: no claim of privacy if you are in a public place. 1. Required by Congress, pursuant to law (GSIS,
Philhealth, SSS).
- There is no need to get the consent of the parties as they are in 2. The law must clearly provide limits on the use of
information and accountability.
a public place.
- SC DID NOT say that the information cannot be required. In
fact, it already is. What is objectionable is if there was an
PRIVACY OF ONE’S PERSON usurpation of functions and if accountability is not clear.
- DATA PRIVACY LAW: provides for a system of ensuring a
- Have you ever been asked to submit your urine? YES, for valid use of information and accountability for its use.
employment, immigration. Some information are considered sensitive information.
- There are some cases where you have to submit something → There is a danger that such information may be passed
THAT IS WITH YOUR CONSENT. around.
- What if it is without your consent but you are required to do so?

SJS VS. DDB


AYER VS. CAPULONG: concept of public figure as a form of waiver of
- Drug test for STUDENTS and EMPLOYEES. your right to be left alone.
- Wouldn’t that violate your right to privacy? YES it will but when
will it not violate student’s rights to privacy? It’s about the - The Court starts out by saying that there is a right to privacy
narrow intrusion. Focused and narrow. (Dean Cortes).
- When would drug test for students not in violation of the - Even without the provision, actually, there has been a right to
Constitution? What would be a constitutionally permissible drug privacy recognized as with the American constitution.
testing scheme for students? Random and prevention and - EXCEPTION: when someone is considered a public figure, one
referral, not for the purpose of prosecution. has deemed to have lost his right to be left alone.
- ONLY STUDENT-ATHLETES: that has to do with the activity - MOVIE about the EDSA Revolution.
which is sports. To ensure the integrity of the activity. - ENRILE does not want to be depicted at all in the movie. He
enjoined the Australian film-makers to stop filming?
Special case.
- Is the injunction against the filming valid?
- It can only be permissible if it is random and for the purpose of
prevention and referral. Has that proved to be effective? NO, - ENRILE invokes his right to privacy. As a rule, people would
not want their life to be posted in public so he also did not want
based on the statistics. A very small number has been
detected. to.
- Can we now require mandatory drug test? NO, that is an - There will be no movie: RAMOS, ENRILE, SIN → the three
main characters.
intrusion to their privacy. Why can we allow limited intrusions to
their privacy? It’s because minors have more limited rights in - Can an injunction be issued to stop the movie? NO. NOT
the sense that there is still the exercise of parental authority POSSIBLE because that will be unhistoric (not historically
over them, and schools stand in loco parentis. accurate).
- BETTER SYSTEM: good support systems. - There has to be an Enrile character.
1. Public officers.
- EMPLOYEES: can you require all employees in the private
sector and public sector to undergo drug testing? YES. 2. Artists.
3. Athletes.
4. By virtue an event, has now of become of public
interest: the one who won the lotto, victim and accused
Public employees: YES Accountability.
in a crime.
- If there is an event, then that person cannot claim an absolute
right to privacy. In connection to that event, he is already a
Private employees Efficiency, reputation,
public figure and has deemed to have loss his privacy.
reliability, trust and
- SC: yes, one may have the right to privacy but because of
confidence, service.
choice or accident, one has attained the status of a public
figure, the right of privacy is necessarily waived and he cannot
stop anyone from depicting such event.
- If Jollibee or McDonald’s that his crews will not have visible - PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE: can you become a public figure
tattoos, will that be a violation of their rights? Will that be if you want to be left alone? YES. Even if you do want to be left
applicable in schools? Will a school policy that says students alone, if there are circumstances that will thrust you in the
cannot have visible tattoos (if your wear shorts and t-shirt for limelight, then you cannot claim for absolute right of privacy or
PE) be a violation of the rights? to be left alone.
- Cortes: JUSTICE CORTES → child prodigy that was now a
homeless person. The fact that he is now homeless, that does
not divest him of his public figure status.
THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. - There are some people who may want to be in the public light

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 23 - Bantay


but could not, hehe o We talk of speech not in the context of entertainment.
It’s not going to a comedy bar. We talk of speech here
in the context of a system provided for in the
Constitution.
JAN. 11, 2014 o The protection of the right is provided for in the Organic
Law that sets a system founded on delegation of power
MIDTERMS: AUG. 25, 2014 (SATURDAY). to the state.
o Why is your right to peaceably assemble protected?
- Coverage: up until the RIGHT TO INFORMATION. FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
- Today: Speech, Press and Assembly. o Trust comes with accountability.
- Next meeting: Religion, Travel, Information. o Under our system, there is delegation, delegation of
- Both essay type and multiple choice (be very careful with the power. You want the delegates to be made
multiple choice). accountable. What is the key in this process? SPEECH.
o READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CASES. - SPEECH means you being able to speak for redress of
o Everything in the multiple choice is literally from the grievances. You want to make the state accountable.
Constitution and the cases where doctrines are - If there will be a limitation of speech, that would prevent the
announced. delegate from being accountable to the people who delegated
o TAKE NOTE: proper formulation of doctrines. the power in the first place.
- Vacations are for “enhancement:” catching up or do advance o Delegate (State) has a heavy burden for how the power
reading. is being exercised.
o You can criticize the DBM, the Court. And that’s the
SPEECH: most difficult part.
essence of the system.
- SPEECH IS CENTRAL IN A SYSTEM THAT IS BASED ON
- One of the preferred rights.
DELEGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT WAS
- In our constitution: speech on the context of prohibition on
DELEGATED.
legislation.
o That’s the essence of democracy.
- Expression, press, and peaceable assembly.
o Democratic and republican: OUR system.
- 2 provisions (speech and religion) only.
- Without information, you cannot criticize and make the
- Even as we talk about speech, the cases have told us that the
delegate accountable. There must not be prior restraint unless
constitutional analysis of speech involves 4 things:
there is actual malice.
- FOUR COMPONENTS:
- Even in all of these, the Court says there has to be a
1. Information.
STANDARD. In the analysis of these four components WON
2. Prior restraint.
there is a constitutionally permissible limitations, standards
3. Circulation.
would have to be applied.
4. Punishment.
- STANDARDS/TESTS for what? Content-based or –neutral?
- What the constitution means is that your access to information
must be guaranteed, there must be no restraint. You have the PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS: CHAVEZ VS. GOVERNMENT
right to circulate or to publish, or to disseminate the speech
without being subject to punishment. 1. Rational basis
- Is speech absolute? NO. Even if it is preferred, what are its 2. Intermediate
constitutionally permissible limitations on speech? When can 3. Strict scrutiny
there be limitations in information? When may there be prior
restraint? When may circulation be regulated? When will there
be punishment for speech that has been made? CONTENT-NEUTRAL CONTENT-BASED
- Although the constitution provides for a prohibition on one
branch (legislative), speech would have to be regulated
(speech not articulated is just belief), then necessarily, other INTERMEDIATE: establishment Strict scrutiny: the burden lies
branches of the government would have to be involved. of the interest and the extent of with the GOVERNMENT to
the limitation BALANCING. establish a permissible standard.
- Legislation comes before, during, after (judicial) the speech.
- WHAT IS THE RIGHT? SPEECH.
- IS SPEECH ABSOLUTE? NO. Some power would have to be RP: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
exercised (power to regulate or to prohibit).
- But since speech is protected, in fact it is preferred, to what
extent may the power be exercised → focus of the cases.
- Court: Asked to what extent there can be law, executive action - Does the Court really understand Clear and Present Danger?
that can constitutionally, within constitutional bounds, limit - In some cases (Escuelas: Court applied the Dangerous
speech. Tendency Test).
- WHY IS SPEECH IMPORTANT? Why is protection also be - CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER:
given to press (media), or actual assembly where speech is o Applied in various ways.
articulated. o There must be a showing of exactly how it is to be
o Sovereignty comes from the people and from them, it applied in a case to know what is a PERMISSIBLE
flows to the State. State is operationalized through its 3 LIMITATION is.
branches. Court: you go beyond this, then that is
o What is the essence of democracy? unconstitutional. If you do not go beyond that, it
is lawful.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 24 - Bantay


o Does not really mean much unless you can analyze the
case and establish what the boundary is.
o When have you gone beyond the constitutionally
allowable line? NEW YORK TIMES VS. SULLIVAN
o History (Justice Holmes): you will see that while there
- Police commissioner.
has been a refinement of that rule, in the Philippines,
- WHAT? Paid advertisement.
because of laziness, the Phil. SC says everything is
GROUND: what was stated is false.
actually clear and present danger (Eastern Telecoms). The article was alluding that he was the one
responsible.
- ISSUE: 4. PUNISHMENT. Will the newspaper be held
CHAVEZ VS. GONZALES accountable for damages if some of the statements are proved
to be false?
- Who is imposing the limitation? NTC, Sec. of DOJ. - LIABLE? NO.
- How did the Court look at this? Limitation contained in a written - There must be proof of ACTUAL MALICE.
issuance? Only that of KBP; private. Is it even covered by the - SC: if you are a public official, since power has been delegated
Constitutional limitation? to you, you have to be accountable. Statements criticizing you
But KBP is self-regulatory. It is the industry regulating are protected speech. Can it be expected that everything that is
itself. said about you is correct? NO. But that does not matter
- There was no circular. They released a PRESS RELEASE of a whether those are correct or not.
fair warning. - Was the statement in ad true or not? IT DOES NOT MAKE A
They can be held liable under the Wire Tapping Law. DIFFERENCE.
- How can now that be attributed to the State as a form of - PUBLIC OFFICIALS: people can speak out their public officials
limitation from the State? COERCIVE NATURE → NTC IS A and they will not be punished unless to show that they acted
REGULATORY BODY and when it expresses an opinion, even with ACTUAL MALICE.
if it is not stated as a circular, even if it is just in a form of press The person knows they are false but he still continued
release and there is a coercive nature. publication.
It produces a chilling effect. - NY cannot be held liable under this publication. ONLY THOSE
We are talking about a prior restraint. Such a WHO PAID FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT.
declaration of a regulative body has a coercive nature - That speech is protected. There is punishment only when it
shall constitute a prior restraint. was shown to have been done with actual malice.
Best proof: the fact that the KBP issued the circular
among its members. They were in fact prevented from
airing it.
- Isn’t that a valid limitation? Isn’t it that NTC’s declaration has
some basis that you may in fact be held liable against the Anti- SWS VS. COMELEC
Wiretapping Law? NO. NOT PERMISSBLE.
- THE AIRING OF THE TAPE: that is the speech itself, not the - COMELEC banned publication of surveys: PRIOR
tape. What is the protected speech: MEDIA PUBLISHING THE RESTRAINT.
TAPE. - What is being challenged? Constitutionality of Sec. 5.4 of the
- Wouldn’t that limitation be permissible? election code.
- If there is a violation, you become liable under the law, but that - NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM
is after you actually expressed the content. It’s not before such OF SPEECH, etc. Was such a law passed that is an
action. There is a violation only after a judicial proceeding. But impermissible limitation?
stopping it before it can be aired will not be allowed UNLESS - GOVERNMENT: to prevent the bandwagon effect. That has
THERE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER on an interest happened in elections. Those who are behind really failed way,
that the State can protect. way down the list and those at the top were hoisted way, way
NOT A PERSONAL INTEREST of the parties in that up.
communication. COMELEC: anti-democratic; level the playing field.
If this was summoned by Congress, may Garcillano say Based on merits and not on win-ability.
may he refuse to testify? YES. RIGHT TO SLEF- - Is that a permissible limitation? NO.
INCRIMINATION; personal. - O’Brien Test (INTERMEDIATE TEST).
Personal right: Executive privilege. The state’s interest vs. damage to the right.
- The interest must be of the STATE, not private interest Does the state’s interest justify the injury or damage?
because they have a remedy under the law. - Court: what did the COMELEC failed to establish? What was
- CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: the very survival of the the flaw in its theory? PROOF OF THE CAUSAL RELATION
State. If that speech is allowed, it can possibly bring down the BETWEEN SURVEY RESULTS AND ELECTION RESULTS. It
state. And that is the very philosophy of the law inciting to can just be coincidence.
SEDITION. It can be the other way around that these are the
Sedition? Clapping or shouting (viva something); what survey’s result because this is what the people had
is inciting to sedition? thought of already.
Because in shouting, there is an imminent danger of Should we even inquire into why they voted for a
taking action to take arms. particular candidate? NO.
- The Court went on to analyze the framework that was - As long as you cannot establish the detrimental effect of this
explained by PUNO. survey vis-à-vis actual voting: THERE IS NO BASIS.
- Even if it is not articulated as a written policy (guidelines), that - RE: other countries: not applicable to the Philippines.
is already an expression of the State’s act of restraining. That - Even if we do prohibit SWS from publishing surveys, does that
statement has produced a chilling effect that would effectively prohibit other surveys? NO, by the candidates themselves,
restrain media from airing it. That cannot be allowed absent of which will really be BIASED in order to generate a bandwagon
the showing of the real, imminent and clear danger of that effect.
State itself, as distinguished from causing any injury or damage
to private individuals where they have a remedy under the law.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 25 - Bantay


o He had postcards of bare-breasted women of the
CHAPLINSKY VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE Cordilleras.
o Prosecuted based on the law of obscenity.
- What: calling other religions as racketeers and fascists. o NOT OBSCENE but INDECENT. Once you derive profit
- What’s wrong with Chaplinsky? Can he be convicted for that?
YES. Why? What is so much of the words? and exploit them being bare-breasted, then that’s an
- It’s because of the COMMOTION, DISTURBANCE that it might actionable wrong.
possibly cause (art. 142). o TEST OF OBSCENITY AND INDECENCY.
- Why can’t fighting words be protected? o Girl who was dancing wearing a see-through bikini.
- SC here carved out a category of UNPROTECTED SPEECH: OBSCENE.
lewd and obscene, profanity, libellous, slander, offensive
language, fight-provoking words.
- They lost their protection BECAUSE they are WORTHLESS MILLER VS. CALIFORNIA
and they have no redeeming value.
- Not so much because it has a tendency to create disturbance
- COMPONENTS:
BUT BECAUSE some forms of speech have no redeeming
1. Whether "the average person, applying
value. contemporary community standards" would find that
“Fuck the Draft:” socially derisive despite potential the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient
disturbance. interest.
It has a redeeming value. PRURIENT: minamaniac.
He is just demanding accountability: why are we being It’s something intended to address a basic
dragged to war (height of the Vietnam war)? and primal instinct (carnal but in a perverse
- It’s just not because of potential of danger (dangerous way).
tendency test). 2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law; and
There must be a particular determination by
law that the particular conduct is offensive.
MVRS VS. ISLAM DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES Not arbitrary.
Child pornography law.
- Not actionable (published article in Bulgar). But isn’t that 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
patently offensive, and thus, actionable? literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Court: re: SPEECH → remember here we are talking about the It has to be defined also.
State. It is being asked to punish MVRS for the speech. Example: you go to an art gallery, and you
- NO. The coercive power of the State cannot be used despite can see a lot of paintings of nude
the speeches being offensive. people/men. Would that be considered
- Why not? Yes, it might be an expression of opinion. But it’s offensive? NO, because it might have some
offensive. redeeming artistic value. But put that in the
- Why would it result to abridgement of freedom of speech if the walls of AUF-SOL. That makes a difference.
State does punish them? The redeeming value is something that is
- WHAT: statement of a ridiculous opinion. CONTEXTUALIZED and would have to be
- WHY NOT? It’s TOO ENCOMPASSING. It’s basically directed considered in relation to the objective of the
at NO ONE. Should the state really intervene or punish? NO. speech: is it supposed to be for an artistic
- The idea will either DIE or if it does offend, then those offended institution?
can rebut. It’s not the duty of the State to censor and say that
people cannot ridiculous thoughts or idea, as long as it does
not harm anyone in particular.
- Court: where the respondents the ones specifically targeted?
NO.
- Otherwise, it will be an unwarranted censorship of the State. PITA VS. CA
- RULE IN SPEECH IN GENERAL NOT DIRECTED TO
ANYONE IN PARTICULAR: Holmes: test your speech on the - Pinoy Playboy: a rip-off that scans photos from Hustler, Pent
free market of idea. See if it can pass the rigor of public House and print it in black and white. In order to put some
scrutiny. content to it, they will put an article in one of the pages.
- Art. 353, RPC: Requirements of DEFAMATION: there must be - Are these obscene?
an identifiable person. It was only then the State can be called - They were all confiscated.
to intervene because there is a right of the particular person - TEST used: MILLER TEST.
has been violation. - Court: are these materials obscene per se? Or is there a need
for a judicial determination? THERE IS A NEED.
It has to be tested trough a judicial proceeding.
It’s the judge who determines if it indeed does not have
a redeeming value.
OBSCENITY: there had been many attempts what is OBSCENE.
- IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED assessment of the material to
determine the value.
- It has no redeeming value for all people. Given to the court.
- PADAN: pure speech; that is not protected speech. - Before they can even be destroyed, there has to be a
o Why would people want to watch two people having determination of the Court (especially the 3rd one).
sex? It is intended only to satisfy prurient interest. - VALUE CHANGES FROM TIME TO TIME. What may be
o They would pay in order to watch. considered as having no value before, maybe because of
- Where exactly do you draw the borderline? Where is the changing social norms be now considered of value.
Real question: is that really artistic?
borderline? What exactly is obscene and hence, unprotected?
- It is very difficult task for the Court to be the social arbiter to
- US jurisprudence: many TESTS. make a firm determination.
- RP: seller of postcards case. The burden is now put on the shoulders of the judge.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 26 - Bantay


- Such a test will work for there (IN THE US) have a JURY. justice and the foundation of justice is the trust of the people to
- But if you put that task on the shoulders of a singular judge. judges.
Good thing RP adopted the MILLER TEST (but it’s not made - A speech that would undermine people’s trust and to the whole
for a single judge, but for a representative of a community→ judicial branch will result to the crumbling of the Supreme Court
JURY). crumbles, and everything else will also fall down.
Blind adoption of the Miller Test. - The court tried to protect Jurado’s right, however, they must
weigh Jurado’s right vis-à-vis State’s interest.
- Unless the whole system is really corrput, then writers must be
held accountable. The incidents mentioned by Jurado are
Pornography is protected speech, as long as it will pass the Miller actually public knowledge.
- The ruling from Sullivan case is now thrown out, THE BURDEN
Test.
NOW REST TO THE WRITER.

NY VS. FERBER
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
- Is child pornography the same as obscene? NO.
- In the case of obscenity, it is because of the absence of value.
- In the case of child pornography, it is different. WHY? - Who do you want to speak to? You want to make a statement
- Why is child protection UNPROTECTED? It’s not a question of at large.
WON it is obscene. - For speech to be effected, it needs to be disseminated to the
- UNDER THE LAW, child pornography is ALWAYS unprotected, widest possible audience that can act on it.
unlike pornography, which is PROTECTED SPEECH. o Will the government listen to just a few people?
- BASIS: LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF INJURY that
Probably not. But if there are 100,000 of you, probably
child pornography can only be produced or can only be
resulted from an injury of the child (mental, psychological, they can get s****** (ask Jewel).
physical). o You want to scare them to action.
When a child does that, there is an injury: o Is that SPEECH? YES, because you want to deliver a
PSYCOSOCIAL. certain message.
Even if it is exhibited in the most prestigious art gallery, - SPEECH SEEKING REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES OF THE
that is still not protected. GOVERNTMENT: most popular one.
- Some adult pornography may pass the test of Miller but such
test is INAPPLICABLE to child pornography.
- NO REDEEMING VALUE AT ALL.
REYES VS. BAGATSING

- Mayor Bagatsing: refused to give a permit to Reyes (against


US nuclear power in military bases in the Philipines with
Tanada and Diokno).
RENO VS. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - Luneta TO THE US EMBASSY.
- Why was the permit not granted: might create a
- Why is the CDA struck down? OVERBROAD. There is no DISTURBANCE; that the Communist Party may create a
specific in what the acts of child pornography are. disturbance → ordinance protecting the chanceries of an
It must be so narrow that it will not go beyond the embassy.
intention of the law. - May Mayor Bagatsing deny a permit? NO; PRIOR
- RA 9775: MIDTERMS. Is there a constitutional issue in the way RESTRAINT.
child pornography is done? - When would prior restraint be allowed? Only if there is verified
information that the Communist Party will infiltrate and cause
panic. In the absence of that, Mayor Bagatsing can set the
time, place and the manner (CONTENT-NEUTRAL).
Is commercial speech (advertisements) unprotected? TIME: afternoon.
PLACE: Luneta only.
1. Protected. MANNER: you cannot rally on the roads.
2. Unprotected.

Other areas of unprotected speech.


BAYAN VS. ERMITA
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
- CPR cannot exist under the law PRIOR RESTRAINT.
- Maximum tolerance for the restraint: time, place, manner. Allow
IN RE: JURADO them, but negotiate so they will comply.
- BP 880: CONTENT-NEUTRAL; requires that there is a
- Balance: power to site contempt and freedom of speech. guarantee of a place where you can have a rally: FREEDOM
- WHAT: trip to HK and the birthday party. PARK.
- What was the tenor of his columns? TO EXPOSE - ALL PUBLIC PLACES are considered FREEDOM PARKS if
CORRUPTION in the judicial branch. There is nothing wrong the LGU cannot find, within 30 days of a place of assembly.
with that. THAT IS PROTECTED. You are trying to make the
judicial branch acocutnable.
- WHAT IS WRONG ABOUT IT: it did not impute a MOTIVE.
- Did the Court really meet the challenge of NY TIMES vs.
SULLIVAN head on? And have Jurado prove the truth?
DANGEROUS. MALABANAN VS. RAMENTO
- The court approach this in the context of administration of
- YES, there still is a right to assemble.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 27 - Bantay


- Private school: Gregorio Araneta: against a merging because 2. RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE
the university is losing money. INFORMATION.
- If these are vested with public interest (school), then the right to - Our Constitution does not only imply it, it guarantees to a right
assemble is available and can only be limited to punishment to information.
after due process.
- Students cannot be prevented from assembling. - Can you demand a duty from private individuals? NO. No
- REGULATION ONLY. accountability on their part.
- Court: that if they want to rally in a private place, THEY CAN o Two countervailing right: right to be information and
DO SO. If they want to hire SM MOA Arena, they can do so. right to privacy.
But there is that very, very big area between the public and - SEVERAL ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED: what is information?
private, and that was addressed in this case. When is it considered to have the right to access and the
government has the duty to disclose? The duty to consult.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION
JAN. 18, 2014
- First announced in the case of:
Child pornography: content of the news of this past week.

- What’s the problem with it? Enforcement. The Child LEGASPI VS. CSC
Pornography is not sufficient: only prohibitions. But on how to
act → Anti-Cyber Crime Law (TRO). - Petitioner wanted to know the Civil Service eligibility appointed
- Most of child pornography is actually done in the Internet. by the LG.
- There are provisions in RA 9775: telecomunication companies - Why won’t the Civil Service Commission not want to do that?
to filter: at the level of internet service providers. Petitioner is not the real party in interest; no damage from the
appointment of the two. He has no business about it, he not
- NBI is actually asking the ISPs to do that, such being provided
being prejudiced about it.
under the law. The telecoms are not cooperative in filtering.
Legaspi was just a concerned citizen.
- Filtering provides for problems: the application might be Was he one of those who applied but not considered? If
overbroad. yes, then he is an injured party.
o OVERBROAD: tendency to impinge or intrude into - ISSUE: DOES HE HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION? Can the
constitutionally protected rights. Court issue a remedy? Is there a constitutional basis for his
o RENO case: CDA being overbroad and went beyond demand to information?
what will be deemed to be constitutionally permissible / Is there really a right? What is its nature? Who can
demand information?
something that can be prohibited under the constitution.
- Happened before the 1987 Constitution. The previous
- MIDTERMS. Constitution was not very clear WON that right actually exists.
- Why is the information public? Appointments, are those public?
ADMINITRATIVE MATTERS: midterms include essay type and Does Legaspi have a remedy? YES.
multiple choice questions (based on the provisions and the doctrines Can CSC claim privacy? As in when Kris Aquino can?
announced in the cases). - He is trying to secure a writ of Mandamus. He has a remedy
because he has a right to that information. WHY? Is there even
- Multiple choice questions will not include scenarios. a need to establish what his business is? NO. what is he trying
to find out? The legal requirements had been complied with:
- Straight-forward: it’s either you know it or you don’t.
QUALIFICATIONS; FITNESS; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT;
TRAINING → nothing objectionable about that.
As we saw last meeting, the right to information is critical to exercise - It’s not because they are sanitarians; it’s just that there are
for speech. requirements. He can ask the same thing for a justice.
Interviews are actually being made public.
- Speech has a very important role to play in our democratic - Court: it’s just the bottom-line that Legaspi is concerned with.
system. - We talk about of matters of public concern, we have to tie it up
- Speech is really essential. with something clearly demandable.
- PUBLIC CONCERN can mean many things. It must be tied up
- As we saw from the cases, speech is protected because of the
to a legitimate purpose. A blanket statement misses the point
value of speech has in the political process: political, all together. There are certain circumstances when something
administrative, social. can be of public concern.
- Speech presupposes that there is some substantive basis. - WHY DOES HE HAVE A REMEDY? It’s everyone’s business;
That’s why in the 4 components of speech, one of the most taxpayers paying the salaries of those who are appointed.
important components are information and access to - With or without the provision in the Constitution, does Legaspi
information. have a cause of action? YES. Now, it’s expressly stated in the
1987; based on old cases. There is something implied from the
- PARADIGM: speech is important to exact accountability from
constitution.
the delegates of the power (State). 1. Public office is a public trust: to know if there was a
o In our Constitution, to make something like this work, lawful appointment state has a duty to disclose it.
the right to information is guaranteed. 2. Freedom of speech: how can you possibly speak if you
- PROVISIONS: do not have the information?
o PUBLIC DISCLOSURE; ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERN.
o The one who has the duty to disclose is the delegate.
o People have the right to access that information.
VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE
1. DUTY OF THE STATE TO DISCLOSE.
- He wants to find out the names of the Batasan from GSIS.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 28 - Bantay


- Why does GSIS do not want to give that information? - Full public disclosure: PASSIVE ACTION.
1. Private. - How did the Government recognize the duty? The Government
2. Financial institution, not a regular line agency. itself provided for the HOW. EO No. 3 provided for the
- May Valmonte get that information? mechanism for the peace aspects.
1. Why can’t privacy be raised? To provide for the consultative process.
2. Doesn’t GSIS exercise proprietary rights? - When the Constitution says the government shall disclose, it
- Court: it is the individual that can raise the issue of privacy, not doesn’t mean the government has to always be passive. It has
the GSIS. They are also public officials: they have a very the option, and in this case it chose to (proactively), ensure
limited right to privacy (only what is purely private which can be access to information. It must comply with its own processes.
excluded from public scrutiny). - More so, since the matter/substance under discussion is
- Priopriety vs. ministerial and governmental functions → was something that will directly affect the lives in Mindanao. That’s
long been discarded. the logic behind the EO (because of the wide-ranging effect of
As long as it is “government,” that’s already public. It’s the MOA-AD).
too late in the day for GSIS to assert their proprietary - If there is no compliance, then there is a violation by the
rights. government.
- Can Valmonte be given the right to access? YES. - CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS: government made sure that there
- His right ABSOLUTE? NO. Can you demand GSIS to prepare a are other consultations on the ground being conducted by the
list for you? NO. What you can demand is access. It is for him government. Feedback is being inputted in the negotiations
to come up with a list. To require GSIS such is basically asking done in Kala Lumpur.
it to make a judgment that these are behest loans. All you can
demand is access that GSIS give you access: to give you
records of the borrowers and it is up for you to make your case.
- With regards to access: there are limitations: - ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS: “as may be provided by
1. Regular working hours.
law.”
2. No expenses for photocopying shouldered by the
government. o Refers to the LIMITATIONS.
3. No requirement to assign a person: paid by the o Members of the ConCom that even without a law, there
government. is already a right to information.
- It is something that can be regulated or limited. o The Commissioners pointed out that with or without the
- LEGITIMATE PURPOSE: Yes, he wants to find out if there has law, there is already a right to information that can be
been a violation/compliance of the law. invoked.
o References to law are LIMITATIONS:
1. ACCESS: regulations for content-neutral.
2. DISCLOSURE: information that should not be
CHAVEZ VS. PCGG disclosed: RA. 6713.
o IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. Any reference from the
- What kind of information Chavez wants? Information on the law is not for it to be executory. The laws refer to the
substance of the negotiation between PGCC and the limitations, the right being not absolute.
Marcoses.
- Why does the PCGG not want to? The transactions are still on- RELIGION
going. Please wait when there is an agreement. Before that, it
cannot give them the information. Negotiations must be
- A system of belief, worship conduct, often involving a code of
CONFIDENTIAL.
The only way they can come up with a good agreement ethics and philosophy.
is for such to be confidential? - It is not something that can be defined.
- Can PGCC be compelled to disclose their negotiations? YES. - Even if you do not believe religion, that’s also religion.
Why does it qualify of something of public interest? The ery - Religion does not limit itself to your beliefs of man and his
thing was actually discussed in the Constitutional relationship with his Creator.
Commissions: Commisioners had agreed that what should be - That’s why there has been no attempt really to try to limit what
disclosed in order to prevent the repetition what happened in
religion is. Doing so is a violation of freedom to religion.
the Martial Law is everything, including those that have not
even been finalized or concluded.
- Clear intention according to the Court of disclosure to even
those matters under negotiation. It will run afoul of the intention INDIVIDUAL STATE (PROHIBITIONS)
if we are going to limit.
- NEVERTHELESS, there are five general exceptions from the
information that may be required to be disclosed by the 1. Belief – confined to 1. Non-establishment
government: thought; ABSOLUTE. clause: the state cannot
1. National Security 2. Action – REGULATED; it create religions and to
2. Criminal Matters will affect other people. provide direct support to
3. Trade Secrets o Not treated under religion.
4. Commercial / Banking. the same way in o Incidental benefit:
5. Other confidential information: executive privileges. the Constitution. tax exemptions
o Have to be looked (cemetery,
upon based on the hospitals).
harm cased to the o DIRECT BENEFIT:
society and t the VIOLATIVE
others. (establishment).
NORTH COTABATO VS. GOVERNMENT
o LIMITATION IS o INCIDENTAL
CONTENT- EBENFIT: NO
- How did the Court extend the right to information to include the
NEUTRAL: VIOLATION. The
duty of the state to conduct consultations? To actively go out to
ESCRITOR. grant is to the
the people and get their inputs.
o If they believe it, student, not to the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 29 - Bantay


fine. But when that schools.
is made into EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
action? STRICT SEPERATION VS.
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY - Framework of analysis: it’s the government that has the burden
(Aglipay, Laurel). as the right is preferred.
Who has the burden to show that the action should be
2. Free exercise limited? REVERSE OF GERONA.
Basically, you cannot use the possibility. There must be
some basis of the danger perceived in Gerona.
There is no established relationship between the action
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY: an approach that looks further than the of the petitioners and patriotism.
secular purposes of government action and examines the effect of - We are not talking here about the State but of the individuals.
these actions on religious exercise; the Court will strive to - Court: what has been feared has not come to pass.
- Something similar is happening in S. Korea: refused to render
accommodate religious beliefs and practices when it can within flexible the 21-month compulsory service (contentious objector).
constitutional limits. Jailed them. Is that a violation here in the Philippines if
ever we have a mandatory military service law (Art. 2)
- NEUTRAL IN THE SENSE: and the members of the JWs declined to report
- It’s not so much of the belief. It has more to do with the because it’s against their religion?
separation of the church and state. - It’s not would be what would be of higher value: in the
constitution, the right is already preffered and protected so the
analysis should be the complete opposite: the right will not be
curtailed unless the state can prove otherwise:
AGLIPAY VS. RUIZ
NO LAW SHALL BE MADE RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
- Challenging the action of postmaster for issuing posts tamps in
THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF RELIGIOUS
commemoration of the International Eucharistic Congress (with
PROFESSION AND WORSHIP, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR
the chalice in the background).
PREFERENCE, SHALL FOREVER BE ALLOWED. NO RELIGIOUS
- For him, that is the use of public funds to promote the Catholic
TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR
Church.
POLITICAL RIGHTS.
Eucharistic: Catholic.
- Such is also a violation of the students’ right to education: the
- Court; it is to advertise the VENUE MANILA, PHILIPPINES.
state is now violating those rights.
- The resulting propaganda received by the Roman Catholic
- HELD: you do not need to salute it. You just have to be there.
Church was not the aim and purpose of the government.
- Could the Court actually have ruled otherwise? YES. How?
- Legally, why is there nothing objectionable?
What is the more correct protection in the Constitution, there
- Court: benefit is only incidental. You have to take a look at the
being no showing any injury? For the students to just stay in
primary purpose (to promote tourism) to determine WON it’s
the classroom.
valid. The test is not to look at the fringes but to the center.
There is still an infringement of their right by asking
They used the event to draw in visitors. THAT’S ALL.
them to still stay.
The Phil. Postal Corp. was just using a religious event
- Without any causing of disruption.
in order to generate tourist arrivals and income for the
post office to the benefit of the state. Where the primary
purpose is for the benefit to the State, any incidental
benefit to a religion will not invalidate it.
Other example: subsidies in some archdiocese and
schools. ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR
How about MADRASA EDUCATION (Arabic language
and Islamic language education): compensations of the - SCENARIO: she (court interpreter) is living in with another
Islamic teachers → Esteban: NON VIOLATIVE because person and they lived together as husband and wife.
it’s a form of a culture. YANGA: VIOLATIVE because - A case of immorality was filed against her.
the primary purpose is not secular. - ISSUE: WON convicting her of immorality will violate her
freedom of religion? According to her, her union is deemed to
be valid under their religion, despite their previous, still valid,
marriages. And they had been living together before she even
became an employee of the Court.
Her belief is now translated to ACTION.
GERONA VS. SEC. OF EDUC. (overturned; analysis is completely - CARPIO: issue of morals based on religious tenets.
wrong) - VITUG: social norms.
- CONTENDING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES: freedom of
- You cannot use religion as an excuse for not saluting the flag. religion; public office is a public trust.
- You have to join the ceremony, sing the Pambansang Awit and - THIS IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF ANOTHER
put your hands on your chest. PROVISION IN THE FAMILY CODE: marriage is an inviolable,
- The expulsion is being questioned. social institution.
- DANGER: state interest; loss of a value → there might be an
What about for teachers who live with men who are not
erosion of patriotism if children in schools will not salute the flag
their husbands? Would that not violate EQUAL
or if some children are exempted from saluting the flag.
PROTECTION?
- In the hierarchy of values, the Court said patriotism is higher
If you can treat JWs differently, can you also afford that
than religion. Allowing the exception might allow the erosion of
prohibition to old people (sick)?
such value.
- State interest will always trump the exercise of an individual
right: DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST.
FIRST FRAMEWORK SECOND FRAMEWORK

Public office is public trust: high CASE AT BAR/PUNO

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 30 - Bantay


standards. For you to be held (Methodist): that is already a
NOT liable for violating it, you requirement. Standards are
have to show that it would already provided that you shall
violate the constitution for you abide with: adultery. Her
be made liable. defense is religious freedom
(she was just acting out her
Burden is upon the belief).
INDIVIDUAL.
BURDEN IS ACTUALLY And State action will not
ON THE STATE. But be permissible unless it
which comes first? Did shows a compelling
she assert her religious reason to do so.
actions first, or is it as a DANGER: if you want to
defense? EBRANILAG exercise religion, then
(state reacted to the why don’t you just go to
action). private employment. You
are not being compelled
to work for a
government.

- Example: if you are a Muslim and you go to a restaurant. Can


you demand the restaurant to serve you Halal food? Can you
demand the government to serve Halal food? It’s your own
personal preference, so you cannot demand.
- When you are held administratively liable, and you raise
freedom of religion as a defense, is that valid? Actually
not. Solution: REMAND.
- All it did was to give us a review of the different views.
- There is nothing really like religion; even learned men cannot
be forced to agree how they look at religion. There is actually
nothing right or wrong here.
- REMANDED:
1. To examine the sincerity of the respondent.
2. Evidence of the state’s compelling interest.
3. Less intrusive.
- 100th anniversary of the INC. NOT VIOLATIVE for it will
generate income.

ISLAMIC …

- What is it objecting to? EO 46 authorizing OMA to issue


certifications of Halal (the production of certain goods following
Islamic rights and rituals) for public health and safety.
It’s not so much as fat content.
- Court: if you are talking about health and safety: FDA must be
appointed, NOT OMA.
- What’s wrong with OMA to say that a particular food is Halal?
- If government will issue the certifications, it is now performing
religious functions – which the government cannot do.
- Petitioners are questioning it because such certification can
only be issued by religious officers.
- Certification has nothing to do with health and safety.

SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING:

State has the burden of showing the compelling state interest. it’s not
the case of “go ahead and regulate.” AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY:
regulation will not be allowed unless the state can clearly show the
compelling state interest.

GENERAL RULE: the State shall not directly support a religion. BUT
any incidental benefit to religion will not be declared unconstitutional as
long as the primary purpose is a valid state purpose.

- END -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 – 2nd SEMESTER – MIDTERM NOTES Page 31 - Bantay

You might also like