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