DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS Limitations: Generally, the Bill of Rights, although in some

This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative cases the exercise of the power prevails over specific
powers as on the two other powers. In essence, separation constitutional guarantees. The courts may annul the
of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, improvident exercise of police power. These powers must
execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of Bill of Rights.
to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA
of the others. But the separation is not total. The system 759, the City Government of QC was not exercising police
allows for “checks and balances” the net effect of which power when they required private cemetery owners to
being that, in general, no one department is able to act reserve 6% of the burial lots for pauper’s burial ground. The
without the cooperation of at least one of the other SC held that in police power, the property to be taken is to
departments. be destroyed. The 6% are private property of the cemetery
Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art. III:
department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The purpose was “Private property shall not be taken for public use without
not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction just compensation.” Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of
incident to the distribution of governmental powers among police power. The City was made to pay the owners just
the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. compensation.
1. To secure action
2. To forestall overaction In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272,
3. To prevent despotism Sec. 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates
4.To obtain efficiency newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to
Principle of Blending of Powers: Instances when powers are provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC
not confined exclusively within one department but are space, was held to be an invalid exercise of police power
assigned to or shared by several departments. there being no showing of the existence of a national
Principle of Checks and Balances: This allows one emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of
department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or print space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable
to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other and calibrated response to such necessity. This was held to
departments. be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeit
¤The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given invalid, because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to
power has been validly exercised by a particular be given to it by the newspapers.
department is whether or not the power has been
constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming ¤Police power and power of taxation—cannot be delegated
its exercise—since the conferment is usually done to administrative bodies.
expressly. However, even in the absence of express ¤Police power and power of eminent domain both involved
conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified taking. They differ in purpose.
under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of ¤Police power—to destroy; because the property is harmful,
express power carried with it all other powers that may be obnoxious, poses a risk to the public.
reasonably inferred from it. ¤Power of eminent domain—only private property is the
Justiciable question- implies a given right, legally subject of taking; the purpose is to convert the private
demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of property to public use.
such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for
said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642) —POLICE POWER—
-It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining &
THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE regulating the use of liberty and property.
1. Police Power -It is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature
2. Power of Eminent Domain to make, ordain, & establish all manner of wholesome
3. Power of Taxation and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either w/
Similarities: penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as
1. Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of they shall judge to be for the good & welfare of the
express constitutional grant. commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.
2. Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective -The power is plenary & its scope is vast & pervasive,
without them. reaching & justifying measures for public health, public
3. Methods by which State interferes with private property. safety, public morals, & the general welfare.
4. Presupposes equivalent compensation. -It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
5. Exercised primarily by the legislature. health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety &
Distinctions: general welfare of the people. (Binay vs. Domingo)
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation Power -It has been described as “the most essential, insistent & the
¤Regulates both liberty ¤Affects property ¤affects property least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great
and property rights rights
public needs.” It is the power vested in the legislature to
¤may be exercised only ¤may even be ¤may be exercised
by government; cannot exercised byprivate only by government; make, ordain, & establish all manner of wholesome &
be delegated to entities cannot be delegated reasonable laws, statutes & ordinances, either w/ penalties
administrative body ¤the property is to administrative or w/o, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge
¤property taken is wholesome & body to be for the good & welfare of the commonwealth, & for
usually noxious devoted to public ¤the property is the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs.
(unpleasant & harmful) use or purpose wholesomeand
or intended for ¤compensation is devoted to public
DSWD, G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007)
noxious purpose and the full and fair use/purpose -Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a
may thus be destroyed equivalent of the ¤it is the protection careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that
¤compensation is the property taken and/orpublic the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s criminal complaint
intangible, altruistic improvements because respondents had validly resorted to the police
feeling that the instituted by
power of the State when they effected the demolition of
individual has government for the
contributed to the taxes paid the illegal fishpond in question following the declaration
public good thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the
Ombudsman, “those who participated in the blasting of the
subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
the best interest of the general public; for the good and the welfare” of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA
highest good. may not order the opening of Neptune St. in the Bel-Air
Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated
Requisites (Limitations): police power.
1. Lawful subject—the interests of the public in general Section 11, Article X—the Congress may, by law, create
as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a
exercise of this power. plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component
2. Lawful means—the means employed are reasonably for cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy
the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly and shall be entitled to their own local executives and
oppressive on individuals. legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan
“Affected with public interest”—an industry is subject to authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to
control for the public good; it has been considered as the basic services
equivalent of “subject to the exercise of police power”. requiring coordination.
Construction: construed strictly and any doubt must be MMDA is not a special metropolitan political
resolved against the grant. subdivision.

Scope/Characteristics: However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15,
It is the most pervasive, least limitable, and the most 2005, although the law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA
demanding of the three powers. The justification is found in: the power to confiscate & suspend or revoke drivers’
salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is licenses w/o need of any legislative enactment, the same law
the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas vests the MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules &
(use your property so as not to impair others). regulations. Thus, where there is a traffic law or regulation
1. It cannot be bargained away through the medium of a validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom
treaty or a contract. legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not
2. The taxing power may be used as an implement of police precluded—& in fact is dutybound—to confiscate & suspend
power or revoke drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its mandate of
3. Eminent domain may be used as an implement to attain transport & traffic management, as well as the
the police power objective (Association of Landowners vs. administration & implementation of all traffic enforcement
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343). operations, traffic engineering services & traffic education
4. In Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126102, December programs.
4, 2000, nonimpairment of contracts or vested rights
clauses will have to yield to the superior and legitimate Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate):
exercise by the State of the police power. a. express grant by law
5. In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, b. within territorial limits (for local government units,
the exercise of the constitutional right of every citizen to except when exercised to protect water supply)
select a profession or course of study may be regulated c. must not be contrary to law
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard
health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the For municipal ordinance to be valid:
general welfare of the people. This regulation assumes 1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the 2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
public from the potentially dead effects of incompetence and 3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
ignorance. 4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;
In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear 5. it must not be unreasonable; and
arms is merely statutory privilege. The license to carry 6. it must be general in application and consistent with public
firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither policy.
does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside one’s
residence may be revoked at any time. Even if it were a In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12,
property right, it cannot be considered as absolute 2005, the SC declared as an invalid exercise of the police
as to be beyond the reach of the police power. power the City of Manila Ordinance No. 7783, which
prohibited “the establishment or operation of businesses
Who may exercise police power? providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment,
The power is inherently vested in Congress. However, they services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area”,for being
may validly delegate this power to the following: contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of
1. the President of the Republic of the Phils. due process & equal protection of the laws.
2. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public In Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994),
corporations solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper
3. the lawmaking bodies of local government units regulation by the State in the exercise of police power.
Local government units exercise the power under the general In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314
welfare clause. (2000), the issuance of business licenses & permits by a
CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, municipality or city is essentially regulatory in nature.
1998, while police power may be delegated to the President The authority, which devolved upon local government units,
by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as amended, do not authorize to issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the
the President or any other administrative body, to take over exercise of the police power of the State within the
the internal management of a cooperative. Accordingly, contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC.
Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by the The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
President, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily Reform Law (CARL) is an exercise of police power and the
take over and manage the affairs of CANORECO is invalid. power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL
prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an
In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, exercise of police power for the regulation of private
March 27, 2000, there is no provision in RA 7924 that property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to
empowers the MMDA or its council to “enact ordinance, carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of
lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, Object of Expropriation:
there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The 1. anything that comes under the dominion of man
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of 2. real, personal, tangible and intangible
the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and 3. property right
physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights 4. churches and other religious properties
accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The 5. property already devoted to public use
Bill of rights provides that “no person shall be deprived of Except: money- because compensation is also money
life, liberty and property without due process of law.” The Who may exercise?
CARL was not intended to take away property without due Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation to:
process of law. The exercise of power of eminent domain 1. the President;
requires that due process be observed in the taking of 2. lawmaking bodies of LGUs;
private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 3. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public
(1999)] corporations
4. Private enterprises performing public services.
Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002,
November 15, 2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by the power of eminent domain must, by enabling law, be
public utilities is founded upon the police power of the State delegated to local governments by the national legislature,
and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would
of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a want it to be. The grant of the power to local
private property is used for a public purpose and is government units under RA 7160 cannot be understood
affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power
only & becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is vested in the legislative branch of government.
to promote the common good. Submission to regulation JIL School Foundation vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No.
may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as 152230, August 9, 2005—Sec. 19, of the LGC requires the
long as the use of the property is continued, the same is LGU to tender a prior written definite and valid offer to
subject to public regulation. acquire the property before the filing of the complaint for
In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the eminent domain.
State protects the public against arbitrary and excessive rates Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716—the exercise of
while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services the power of eminent domain is clearly superior to the final
rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not and executor judgment rendered by the court in an
give the State the right to prescribe rates which are so low as ejectment case.
to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620—services were considered
investment. embraced in the concept of property subject to taking
Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, under the power of eminent domain. Republic, in the
Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, may
newspapers of general circulation in every province or city to require the telephone company to permit interconnection of
provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as
space, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there the needs of government service may require, subject to the
being no showing of the existence of national emergency or payment of just compensation to be determined by the
imperious public necessity for the taking of print space, nor court.
that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated
response to such necessity. Where Expropriation Suit Is Filed:
Public purpose and use has broader concept now. It now In the Regional Trial Court—because it is incapable of
includes VICARIOUS BENEFITS that society may derive from a pecuniary estimation
particular measure. e.g. CONCERN FOR THE POOR—SC
recognized this as one for public purpose and use. Requisites POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN:
1. Necessity—when exercised by:
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN— also known as the power of a. Congress—it is a political question; (Municipality of
expropriation. The power of eminent domain is the power of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640)
the State to forcibly take private property for public use upon b. Delegate—the determination of whether there is a
payment of just compensation. It is the right/power of a genuine necessity for the exercise is a justiceable question
sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular (Republic vs. La Orden de Po. Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649).
uses to promote public welfare. The RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the
It is government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine
compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use whether there is a genuine necessity for it (Bardillon vs.
or purpose. (Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586) Brgy. Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30,
The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not 2003).
only the public, but even the private property of all
citizens within the territorial sovereignty, for public Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13,
purpose. 2004—there was no showing at all why petitioners’ property
Power of Eminent Destruction Due to Necessity was singled out for expropriation by the city ordinance or
Domain what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection.
¤involves public rights ¤involves private rights such as The ordinance stated no reason for the choice of
¤the property is self-preservation & self-defense petitioners’ property as the site of a socialized
converted to public ¤there is no need for the housing project.
use conversion to public use
¤there must be ¤no need for just compensation 2. Private property—all private property capable of
payment of just ¤may be validly undertaken even ownership may be expropriated except money and choses
compensation by in action; may include services.(Republic vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA
¤undertaken by the private individuals 620)
State
In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349, a easement perpetually deprives defendants of their
cemetery open to the public was already in public use and no proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the
part of the ground could be taken for other public uses plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines
under a general authority. The City of Manila was without no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore,
authority to expropriate the property. (The Congress itself because of the high-tension current conveyed through the
should expropriate or there must be special grant.) transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be
caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted,
3. Taking— there is taking when: and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendant once,
a. The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said
property; affected portion of their property.
b. There is practical destruction or material impairment of
the value of theproperty; In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance
c. The owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property; prohibiting a building which would impair the view of the
d. The owner is deprived of jurisdiction, supervision and plaza from the highway was considered taking. The property
control of his property. owner was held to be entitled to payment of just
compensation.
Requisites for a valid taking: (Republic vs. Castellvi) (EMADO) In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the
a. The expropriator must enter a private property; property can recoverpossession of the property from
b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period; squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to the
c. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority; Government, until the transfer is consummated or the
d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise expropriation case is filed.
informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to Taking under Eminent Taking under Police Power
oust the owner anddeprive him of beneficial enjoyment of Domain
the property. ¤Only private properties ¤All properties are subject to
may be taken taking
The taking of private property may include the impairment ¤The private property is ¤The purpose of taking is to
of the use of the property for which it was intended. In US taken in order to destroy the property because it
vs. Causby, 328 US 256, the flight of planes from a nearby convert it to public use is harmful or obnoxious to the
military airport over plaintiff’s property below the public.
navigable airspace resulting in the ruin of plaintiff’s chicken TELEBAP, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 1998, the
farm was considered compensable taking. So also were low constitutionality of Sec. 92 of BP 881 (requiring radio and
landing & take-off flights which made nearby residential area television station owners & operators to give to the
unlivable (Griggs vs. Allegheny County). This is taking in the COMELEC radio & television time free of charge) was
constitutional sense. challenged on the ground that it violated the due process
clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution
¤Avenida, Rizal used to be the commercial center of Manila. by taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting
However, when the Light Railway Transit (LRT) was built, the stations without payment of just compensation. The SC held
commercial value of Avenida was greatly diminished. The that all broadcasting, whether by radio or by television
shops and stores had to close. The owners of these stations, is licensed by the government. Airwaves frequencies
establishments suffered losses because of the operation of have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want
the LRT along Avenida, Rizal. Are they entitled to be paid to broadcast than there frequencies to assign. A franchise is
just compensation? No. SC held that the kind of injury or loss thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment
that one must suffer that will justify the payment of just by Congress in accordance with the constitutional provision
compensation must be a special kind of injury or loss as in that “any such franchise or right granted x xx shall be
the case of Causby. If the injury or loss that one suffered is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the
one which he suffered together with the rest of the Congress when the common good so requires” (Art. XII,
community, his only compensation in such a case is the Sec.11).
altruistic feeling that somehow he is able to contribute to In the granting of the privilege to operate
the common good. broadcast stations and thereafter supervising radio and
television stations, the State spends considerable public
CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, funds in licensing & supervising such stations. It would be
The owner of the property cut the electric lines alleging that strange if it cannot even require the licensees to render
it impaired him of the use of his property. The SC held that public service by giving free airtime. x x x As radio and
the property owner was not justified in cutting the television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves,
electric lines. His property becomes the servient estate no private property is taken by the requirement that they
subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition of an provide airtime to the COMELEC.
easement of right of way filed by an electric power company
for the construction of PPI vs. COMELEC TELEBAP vs. COMELEC
transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of ¤there was taking of ¤there was no taking of
eminent domain. However, since there was an impairment of property private property
the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment of just ¤newspaper space is the ¤airwaves are scarce
compensation. private property of the resources, the use is
newspaper owners regulated by the State
The establishment of an easement is a form of ¤print media do not enjoy ¤franchise (privilege) is
compensable taking. In NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. privilege issued by the State (Art. XII,
No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of the land was Sec. 11)
awarded full compensation against the NAPOCOR’s Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and
argument that the owners were not totally deprived of the TELEBAP are media of communication & information. Equal
use of the land and could still plant the same crops as long as protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC ruled that
they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute
said: “the right of way
equality. There may be classification. Persons or things Land Bank vs. CA (and DAR vs. CA), 249 SCRA 149—Sec.
ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated 16(e), RA 6657—the deposit of compensation must be in
differently if there is a basis for valid classification. “cash” or in “Land Bank bonds” not in any other form, and
certainly not in a “trust account”.
4. Public use—“public interest”; “public benefit”; “public
welfare”; “public convenience” (Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. Reckoning point of market value of the property:
147511, January 20, 2003). FMV at the date of:
The general concept—meeting public need or a) filing of the complaint; or
public exigency; may include indirect public benefit or b) the taking –whichever is earlier.
advantage.
In Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240, public Rules in Just Compensation-Rule 67, Sec. 6:
use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general 1. Determine the actual or basic value of the property.
welfare. 2. If entire property not expropriated:
Value of property-consequential benefits+consequential
It has been broadened to include not only uses directly damages / (basic or actual) - (CB) + (CD)
available to the public but also those which redound to their ¤If consequential benefits exceed consequential damages, CB
indirect benefit; that only a few would actually benefit from and CD should be disregarded because the BASIC VALUE of
the expropriation of the property does not necessarily the property should be paid in every case.
diminish the essence & character of public use. (Manosca vs. Basic/market value—the price that may be agreed upon by
CA, 252 SCRA 412) the parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract
of sale.
In Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716, the fact that the
property is less than ½ hectare and that only a few could Factors to be considered:
actually benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its 1. Cost of acquisition
public use character, inasmuch as “public use” now includes 2. Actual or potential uses
the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, 3. Current value of like properties
including, in particular, urban land reform and housing. 4. in particular case: size of lands, shape, location & tax
declaration
By express legislative authority granted by Congress in Sec.
19, RA 7160, LGUs may expropriate private property for Consequential damages—injuries directly caused on the
public use, or purpose, or welfare, for the benefit of the poor residue of the privateproperty taken by reason of
and the landless. Thus, in Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 568, the expropriation
SC held that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Example: the property left is in odd shape or with area
Sur was without authority to disapprove Bunawan virtually unusable
Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 because, clearly, the Consequential Benefits—the remainder is, as a result of the
Municipality of Bunawan has authority to exercise the power expropriation, placed in a better location, such as fronting a
of eminent domain and its Sanggguniang Bayan the capacity street where it used to be an interior lot.
to promulgate the assailed resolution. Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343
(1989)— the power of eminent domain could be used as
However, in the case of Municipacility of Parañaque vs. an implement of police power. The expressed objective of
V.M. Realty Corporation, 292 SCRA 676, the SC declared the law was the promotion of the welfare of the farmers,
that there was lack of compliance with Sec. 19 of RA 7160, which came clearly under the police power of the state. To
where the Municipal Mayor filed a complaint for eminent achieve this purpose, the law provided for the expropriation
domain over two (2) parcels of land on the strength of of agricultural lands (subject to minimum retention limits
the resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, because for the
what is required by law is an ordinance and not mere landowners) to be distributed among the landless peasantry.
resolution.
In Francia, Jr. vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. ¤DARAB determines just compensation (exception to the
170432, March 24, 2008, the Supreme Court held that general rule that courts decide the value)
the determination of a public purpose for the ¤DAR may make initial valuation; owner goes to court if not
expropriated property is not a condition precedent before a satisfied.
court may issue a writ of possession. Once the requisite in ¤Expropriation may be initiated by court action or by
Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code are satisfied, legislation. In both instances, just compensation is
the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial matter for the determined by the courts.
court.
In Republic vs. Salem Investment Corporation, et al., G.R.
5. Just Compensation—the full and fair market value of the No. 137569, June 23, 2000, the Supreme Court held that it is
property taken; it is the fair market value of the property. It only upon payment of just compensation thattitle over the
is settled that the market value of the property is “that sum property passes to the gov't. Therefore, until the action
of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, for expropriation has been completed & terminated,
and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree ownership over the property being expropriated remains
on a price to be given and received therefor.” with the registered owner. Consequently, the latter can
Medium: money except: payment other than exercise all rights pertaining to an owner, including the right
money (Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of to dispose of his property, subject to the power of the State
Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343), payment is allowed to be ultimately to acquire it through expropriation.
made partly in bonds, because under the CARP it deals with
the revolutionary kind of expropriation. The Dela Ramas make much of the fact that ownership
The determination of just compensation in eminent of the land was transferred to the gov't because the
domain cases is a judicial function and factual findings of the equitable & the beneficial title were already acquired by it
CA are conclusive on the parties and reviewable only when in 1983, leaving them with only the naked title. However, xxx
the case falls within the recognized exceptions. (NAPOCOR the recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property
vs. San Pedro,Sept. 26, 2006)
expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator expropriation proceedings, and the second, in the action for
only upon full payment of just compensation. recovery of possession. Fifty-seven (57) years have passed
since then. The Court construed the Republic’s failure to pay
Legal interest for expropriation cases—6% just compensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. Under
-from the time of taking until just compensation is actually such circumstances, recovery of possession is in order. It was
paid then held that where the government failed to pay just
-interest must be claimed, otherwise, it is deemed waived compensation within 5 years from the finality of the
¤Title to the property shall not be transferred until after judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
actual payment of just compensation is made to the owner. concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their
—Genuine Necessity— property.
National legislation—question of necessity is POLITICAL;
judiciary has no power to inquire. Plaintiff’s right to dismiss the complaint in Eminent Domain
Delegate—liberally in favor of the private property owner; In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiff’s
judiciary can inquire into whether the authority conferred “matter-of-right” to dismiss the complaint, precisely
upon such delegate correctly and properly exercised/ because the landowner may have already suffered damages
whether expropriation contemplated by the delegate at the start of the taking. The plaintiff’s right to dismiss the
necessary or wise. complaint has always been subject to court approval and to
certain conditions. (NAPOCOR & Pobre vs. CA, G.R. No.
May eminent domain be barred by “res judicata” or “law of 106804, August 12, 2004)
the case”? The principle of res judicata, which finds
application in generally all cases and proceedings, cannot Right to repurchase or re-acquire the property
bar the right of the State or its agents to expropriate The property owner’s right to repurchase the property
private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as depends upon the character of the title acquired by the
an inherent power of the State, dictates that the right to expropriator, e.g., if the land is expropriated for a particular
exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a purpose with a condition that when the purpose is ended or
prior judgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent abandoned, the property shall revert to the former owner,
domain is plenary and, like policepower, can “reach every then the former owner can re-acquire the property. In this
form of property which the State might need for public use”. case, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation case
All separate interests of individuals in property are held of were very clear and unequivocal, granting title to the lot in
the government under this tacit agreement or implied fee simple to the Republic. No condition on the right to
reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the repurchase was imposed. (Mactan-Cebu International
eminent domain, the highest & most exact idea of property, Airport Authority vs. CA, G.R. No. 139495, Novermber 27,
remains in the gov't, or in the aggregate body of the people 2000)
in their sovereign capacity; & they have the right to resume
the possession of the property whenever the public interest Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, in arguing for
requires it. Thus, the State or its authorized agents cannot the return of their property on the basis of non-payment,
be forever barred from exercising said right by reason alone respondents ignored the fact that the right of the
of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement. expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in
While the principle of res judicata does not ordinary sales to which the remedy is rescission may perhaps
denigrate the right of the State to exercise eminent domain, apply. Expropriation is an in rem proceeding, and after
it does not apply to specific issues decided in a previous condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a
case. For example, a final judgment dismissing an new & independent title.
expropriation suit on the ground that there was no prior
offer precludes another suit raising the same issue; it —POWER OF TAXATION—
cannot, however, bar the State or its agent, from thereafter -The power to demand from the members ofsociety their
complying with this requirement, as prescribed by law, and proportionate share/contribution in the maintenance of the
subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over government.
the same property. [Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M. -It is the power by which the State raises revenue to
Realty Corp., 292 SCRA 678 (1998)] defray the necessary expenses of the Government.
Scope: covers persons, property or occupation to be taxed
When may the property owner be entitled to the return within the taxing jurisdiction. It is so pervasive; it reaches
of the expropriated property in eminent domain cases? even the citizens abroad and their income outside the
In Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Villaroya, the Philippines; all the income earned in the Philippines by a
unpaid landowners were allowed the alternative remedy of citizen or alien.
recovery of the property. The Court ruled that “under Basis: power emanating from necessity (lifeblood doctrine)
ordinary circumstances, immediate return to the owners of
the unpaid property is the obvious remedy.” Importance of Taxation:
However, in cases where land is taken for public use, public 1. No constitutional government can exist without it;
interest must be considered. (Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. 2. It is one great power upon which the whole national fabric
PEZA, 349 SCRA 240) is based;
3. It is necessary for the existence and prosperity of the
Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just nation; and
compensation—as a rule, it does not entitle the landowners 4. It is the lifeblood of the nation.
to recover possession of the expropriated lots, but only to
demand payment of the fair market value of the property. Who may exercise? Generally, the legislature, but also upon
(Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes vs. valid delegation:
NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003). 1. Lawmaking bodies of LGUs (Sec. 5, Art. X);
2. President (limited extent-delegated tariff powers), under
However, in RP vs. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI of the Constitution or as an incident of
2005, the SC said that the facts of the case do not justify the emergency powers that Congress may grant to him under
application of the rule. In this case, the Republic was ordered Sec. 23 (2), art. VI.
to pay just compensation twice; the first was in the
Purpose: unavoidable obligation of the government to sovereignty for the support of the government and for all
protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public needs.
public projects and services. TAX LICENSE
Public purpose—proceeds must be devoted to public use. It 1. AS TO BASIS
includes INDIRECT public advantage/benefits. The mere fact Power of taxation—to raise Police power—to regulate
that the tax will be directly enjoyed by private individual revenue
does not make it INVALID so long as the same link to 2. AS TO LIMITATION Amount is limited to cost of:
public welfare is established. Rate or amount to be a)issuing the license; and
Requisites: collected is unlimited b)necessary inspection of
1. It must be for public purpose; provided it is not police surveillance
2. It shall be uniform; confiscatory
3. Person or property taxed shall be within the jurisdiction of 3. AS TO OBJECT Paid for privilege of doing
the taxing authority; Imposed on something but privilege is
4. In assessment & collection, notice and hearing shall be persons/property revocable
provided. 4. AS TO EFFECT OF NON-
PAYMENT Business becomes illegal
Limitations on the Power of Taxation Business or activity does
Inherent limitations: not become illegal
1. Public purpose;
2. Non-delegability of power; Tax Debt
3. Territoriality or Situs of taxation; ¤due to the government in due to the government in
4. Exemption of government from taxation; its sovereign capacity its corporate capacity
5. International comity—generally accepted principles of Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for
international law the simple reason that the government and the taxpayers are
Constitutional limitations: not creditors and debtors of each other. (Philex Mining Corp.
1. Due process of law—tax should not be confiscatory. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)
¤Due process does not require previous notice and
hearing before a law prescribing fixed/specific taxes on Tax exemptions:
certain articles may be enacted. -discretion of the legislature
¤If the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the 1. Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI
taxable property—ad valorem tax—the taxpayer is entitled 2. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
to be notified of the assessment proceeding and to be heard 3. Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV
on the correct valuation. 4. Sec. 4 (4), Art. XIV
2. Equal protection of law—taxes should be uniform and 5. Where tax exemption is granted gratuitously, it may be
equitable. revoked at will; but not if granted for a valuable
3. Uniformity—persons/things belonging to the same class consideration—deemed to partake of the nature of
shall be taxed at the same rate contract and obligation thereof—protection against
Equitability—taxes should be apportioned among the people impairment.
according to their capacity to pay In Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292, a parish priest accepted a
Progressivity— donation to be used for the construction of a church. The
4. Non-impairment of contracts money was spent for the purpose. The CIR imposed tax.
5. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax The objection was based on constitutional exemption of
6. Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the HOR church properties from taxes. The SC rejected. Exemption
7. Non-infringement of religious freedom referred only to property taxes imposed on lands, buildings &
8. Delegation of legislative authority to the President to fix improvements used for religious purposes. The tax in this
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage case is not an ad valorem tax on the church itself but an
dues excise tax imposed on the priest (not on the properties) for
9. Tax exemption of properties actually, directly and his exercise of the privilege to accept the donation.
exclusively used for religious, charitable and educational Territoriality in Taxation—the power to tax operates
purposes only within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing
10.Majority vote of all the members of Congress required in authority. It cannot be exercised beyond the boundaries
case of legislative grant of tax exemptions except under certain circumstances.
11.Non-impairment of the SC’s jurisdiction in tax cases Taxable Situs of Real Properties—the place where they are
12.Tax exemption of revenues and assets of, including situated
grants, endowments, donations, or contributions to, Mobilia Sequntur Personam—the intangible personal
educational institutions. property such as credits, bank deposits, bonds, corporate
stocks which do not admit of actual location and do not have
Double taxation—additional taxes are laid: inherent value but mere evidence of debts or property are
1. On the same subject; usually taxable in the state of residence of the owner.
2. By the same taxing authority; Uniformity in Taxation—all taxable articles, or kinds of
3. During the same taxing period; and property of the same class, shall be taxed at the same rate.
4. For the same purpose. There is uniformity when a tax operates in taxation with the
Double taxation is allowed by law. However, it will not be same force & effect on its subject wherever found.
allowed if the same will result in violation of the equal Equality of Taxation—taxes shall be strictly proportional to
protection clause. What is prohibited is direct double the relative value of the taxable property
taxation. .
In Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46,
there is no double taxation if one tax is imposed by the LGU
and the other by the National Government.
Taxes—the enforced proportional contributions from
persons and property levied by the State by virtue of its
 Article III BILL OF RIGHTS ¤Applies to all persons, without regard to any difference
Significance. Government is powerful. When limited, it in race, color or nationality
becomes tyrannical. It is a guarantee that there are ¤Artificial persons—covered but only insofar as their
certain areas of person’s life, liberty or property property is concerned.
whichgovernment power may not touch. ¤Extends to aliens
¤All the powers of the government (police power, power ¤Includes the means of livelihood
of eminent domain and power of taxation) are limited by
the Bill of Rights. “Responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience
Classification of Rights: to the dictates of justice.” (Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel
1. Political Rights—granted by law to members of a Operators Association vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849
community in relation to their direct or indirect Life—includes the right of an individual to his body in its
participation in the establishment or administration of completeness, free from dismemberment, & extends to
government. the use of God-given faculties which make life
2. Civil Rights—rights which municipal law will enforce at enjoyable.
the instance of private individuals for the purpose of
securing them the enjoyment of their means of Liberty—includes the right to exist and the right to be free
happiness. from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. x x x It
3. Social and Economic Rights—these are the rights includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
which generally require implementing legislation. (Article faculties in all lawful ways. (Rubi vs. Provincial Board of
XIII) Mindoro, 39 Phil 660)
¤Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)—
some rights are preferred Property—is anything that come under the right of
PBM Employees Org. vs. PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents
¤ While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the more than the things a person owns; it includes the right
primacy of human rights over property is recognized. to secure, use and dispose of them.
Because these freedoms are “delicate & vulnerable, as Public office is not a property which one may acquire
well as supremely precious in our society” and the a vested right, it is nevertheless a protected right.
“threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as (Bince vs. COMELEC, 218 SCRA 782)
potently as the actual application of sanctions,” they
“need breathing space to survive,” permitting Scope/Aspects of Due Process:
government regulation only “with narrow specificity.” 1. Procedural Due Process —the method or manner by
¤ Property and property rights can be lost thru which the law is enforced.It serve as a restriction on
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the
¤In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free government.
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as Requisites: (non-criminal cases)
they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our a. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial
civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives power to hear &
these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not determine matter before it;
permitting dubious intrusions.” b. Jurisdiction properly acquired over person of
¤ The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is defendant & over property which is the subject matter of
underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or the proceeding;
rational relation between the means employed by the law c. Opportunity to be heard; &
and its object or purpose—that the law is neither arbitrary d. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing and based
nor discriminatory nor oppressive—would suffice to on evidence adduced.
validate a law which restricts or impairs property Impartial Court or Tribunal—Judges must not only be
rights. impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an
¤ On the other hand, a constitutional or valid added assurance to the parties that his decision will be
infringement of human rights requires a more stringent just.
criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate In Anzaldo vs. Clave—Jacobo Clave, acting as Chairman
danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right of CSC, rendered a decision against petitioner. When
to prevent. petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, the
Sec. 1, Art. III same Jacobo Clave, but this time acting as Presidential
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property Executive Assistant, upheld his own earlier decision. The
without due process of law nor shall any person be SC held that this violates fundamental fairness required by
denied the equal protection of the laws. due process. A public officer who decided the case should
LIMITATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY - Inherent in sovereignty, not be the same person to decide it on appeal because he
& therefore not even required to be conferred by the cannot be an impartial judge.
Constitution, are the police, eminent domain, & taxation People vs. Mendenilla (2001), judges have as much
powers. The Bill of Rights, notably the due process, equal interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious
protection & non-impairment clauses, is a means of presentation of evidence, and have the duty to ask
limiting the exercise of these powers by imposing on the questions that would elicit the facts on the issues
State the obligation to protect individual rights. The Bill of involved, clarify ambiguous remarks by witnesses and
Rights is addressed to the State, notably the government, address the points overlooked by counsel.
telling it what it cannot do to the individual. Questions which merely clear up dubious points and elicit
relevant evidence are within the prerogative of a judge to
A. DUE PROCESS OF LAW or LAW OF THE LAND ask.
That which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
Sec. 14 (1), Art. III—No person shall be held to answer for
a criminal offense without due process of law. ---This is Overbreadth Doctrine—decrees that a governmental
procedural due process in criminal cases purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
Requisites of Criminal Due Process: protected freedoms.
a. Accused has been heard in a court of competent
jurisdiction; Facial Challenge—a facial challenge is allowed to be made
b. Accused is proceeded against under the orderly to a vague statute & to one which is overbroad because
processes of law; of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech.
c. Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard;
d. Judgment rendered within authority of constitutional “On its face” invalidation of statutes results in striking
law them down entirely on the ground that they might be
¤If the prosecution produces the conviction based on applied to parties not before the Court whose activities
untrue evidence, then it is guilty of depriving the accused are constitutionally protected. It constitutes a
of due process. Thus false testimony can be questioned departure from the case and controversy requirement
by the accused regardless of the time that lapsed. (Mejia of the Constitution and permits decisions to be made
vs. Pamaran, No. L-56741, April 15, 1988) without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract
contexts.
2. Substantive Due Process —it requires that the law
itself, not merely the procedures by which the law Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986), Motion for
would be enforced, is fair, reasonable and just. This serves reconsideration.
as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making [T]he clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the
powers; a prohibition of arbitrary laws. date of effectivity and not to the requirement of
¤The heart to substantive due process is the publication itself, w/c cannot in any event be omitted.
“reasonableness”, or the absence of exercise of arbitrary This clause does not mean that the legislature may
power. These are necessarily relative concepts which make the law effective immediately upon approval, or
depend on the circumstances of every case. on any other date, w/o its previous publication.
¤As a general rule, when the State acts to interfere with
life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the Publication is indispensable in every case, but the
action is valid. In rare cases, as in “prior restraint”, there is legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15-
a presumption of invalidity. day period shall be shortened or extended.
It is not correct to say that under the disputed
Requisites: clause publication may be dispensed w/ altogether. The
a. Interest of the public; reason is that such omission would offend due process
b. Means employed are reasonably necessary for insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws
accomplishment of purpose and not unduly oppressive. that are supposed to govern it.
¤The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting Conclusive presumption of knowledge of the law.-- The
the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private conclusive presumption that every person knows the
business or impose unusual and unnecessaryrestrictions law presupposes that the law has been published if
upon lawful occupations. the presumption is to have any legal justification at all.
The term laws should refer to all laws and not
Void-for-vagueness Rule—a criminal statute that fails only to those of general application, for strictly speaking
to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are
that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a
statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a
erratic arrests and convictions is void for vagueness. The relative of Pres. Marcos who was decreed instant
constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the naturalization.
injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an RULE: All statutes, including those of local application
offense, the nature of which he isgiven no fair warning. and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
A law is “vague” as not to satisfy the due process need for their effectivity, w/c shall begin 15 days after publication
notice when it lacks comprehensible standards that “men unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its legislature.
meaning & differ as to its application” or is so indefinite Coverage: Covered by this rule are PDs and EOs
that “it encourages arbitrary & erratic arrests & promulgated by the Pres. in the exercise of legislative
convictions.” powers. Administrative rules and regulations must also
It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement
offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning. existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.
It is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 aspects: Interpretative regulations & those merely internal
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, in nature, i.e., regulating only the personnel of the
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the administrative agency & not the public, need not be
conduct to avoid; & published. Neither is publication required of the so-
2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying called letters of instructions issued by administrative
out its provisions & become an arbitrary flexing of the superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be
Government muscle. followed by their subordinates in the performance of
The act must be utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it their duties.
cannot be clarified by either saving clause or by Publication must be in full or it is no publication at
construction. (People vs. Dela Piedra, 350 SCRA 163, all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents
January 24, 2001) of the laws. The mere mention of the number of the PD,
the title of such decree, its whereabouts, the ¤In the exercise of its EXECUTIVE or LEGISLATIVE
supposed date of effectivity, & in a mere supplement of functions, such as issuing rules & regulations, an
the OG cannot satisfy the publication requirement. This is administrative body need not comply with the
not even substantial compliance. requirements of notice & hearing.

¤Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It Suntay vs. People (1957)—the passport of a person
is imperative to the validity of laws, PDs, EOs, sought for the commission of a crime may be cancelled
Administrative rules and regulations except interpretative without notice and hearing.
legislations. (Tañada vs. Tuvera, No. L-63915, December
29, 1986) Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168,
December 14, 2004, the Sc ruled that no malice or bad
Notes: In the original case Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 faith attended the Bank’s dishonor of Calderon’s credit
SCRA 27 (1985), the SC ruled that as a matter of card, inasmuch as the dishonor was justified under its
substantive due process, any law must be published Credit Card Agreement which provided that the
before the people can be expected to observe them. But, cardholder agreed not to exceed his approved credit limit,
according to a split decision, publication need not be otherwise the card privilege would be automatically
made in the Official Gazette. It is enough that it be suspended without notice to the cardholder.
published in a newspaper of general circulation. Appeal and due process— Appeal is not a natural right
After the EDSA revolution, upon the nor is it a part of due process; generally, it may be allowed
reconstitution of the SC, the original judgment was or denied by the legislature in its discretion. But where
reconsidered, & the SC now ruled that publication the Constitution gives a person the right to appeal, denial
must be made in the Official Gazette, pursuant to CA 638 of the right to appeal constitutes a violation of due
and the Civil Code, unless a law "provides otherwise" process. Where there is statutory grant of the right to
that is, a different mode of publication. appeal, denial of that remedy also constitutes a denial of
due process.
What must be published are (1) all laws of general Preliminary Investigation and due process— Preliminary
application, and even those not of general application like investigation is not a constitutional right, but is
(2) private laws affecting only particular individuals, e.g., merely a right conferred by statute (Serapio vs.
legislative grant of citizenship, (3) laws of local Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003). It
application, and (4) rules and regulations of a may be waived expressly or by failure to invoke it
substantive character. This means not only the title but (Benedicto vs. CA, G.R.No. 125359, September 4, 2001).
the entire law. When? Forthwith, that is, immediately. The right may be forfeited by inaction, and cannot be
Where? Only in the Official Gazette invoked for the first time on appeal (People vs. Lagao,
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion (2000), an extraditee is G.R. No. 118457, April 8,1997).
not entitled to notice & hearing during the evaluation
stage of the extradition process. PD 1069 affords an Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138, when there is statutory
extraditee sufficient opportunity to meet the evidence grant of the right to preliminary investigation, denial of
against him once the petition is filed in court. During the the same is an infringement of the due process clause.
evaluation stage, right to know is withheld to The right to preliminary investigation is substantive,
accommodate the more compelling interest of the State— not merely formal or technical. To deny it to the
to prevent escape of potential extradite which may be petitioner would deprive him of the full measure of his
precipitated by premature information on the basis of the right to due process. (Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
request for extradition. Roxas vs. Vasquez (2001), lack 138859-60, February 22, 2001)
of notice to, participation of complainants at the
REINVESTIGATION does not render the resolution of the Prejudicial Publicity— To warrant a finding of prejudicial
Ombudsman null and void. (But in preliminary publicity there must be allegation and proof that the
investigation, their participation is needed.) judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they
Exceptions to Notice and Hearing Requirements might be, by the barrage of publicity. Petitioners cannot
Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz (1989)—without conducting any just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity… because
hearing, NTC ordered PHILCOMSAT to reduce its rates by these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing.
15%. PHILCOMSAT challenged the validity of the order on (Webb vs. De Leon, 1995)
the ground that it is an exercise of a quasi-judicial power
without the required hearing. NTC replied that the order ¤Does the due process clause encompass the right to be
was merely interlocutory. The SC held that fixing rates is assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry?
quasi-judicial in nature. Hence, unlike in the exercise of ¤ No. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless
quasi-legislative power, it must be preceded by a hearing. the waiver is in writing & in the presence of counsel, is a
The fact of the order being merely interlocutory does not right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial
alter the situation because for all practical purposes it investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus,
is final as to the period covered. be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with
BUT, in Radio Communications vs. NTC (1990)—the more reason, in an administrative inquiry.
Court upheld the temporary rates granted by the NTC
asserting that the law allows the NTC to approve While investigations conducted by an administrative body
temporary rate requested by public service agency may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact
provided hearings are held within 30 days thereafter. remains that under existing laws, a party in an
¤As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
requirements of procedural due process, are essential counsel, irrespective of the nature of charges and of the
only when an administrative body exercises its QUASI respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty
JUDICIAL function. rests on such body to furnish the person being
investigated with counsel. In an administrative ¤ It simply requires that all persons or things, similarly
proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
services of counsel or not. Thus, the right to counsel is conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects,
not imperative in administrative investigations because in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to
such inquiries are conducted merely to determine give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate
whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against others.
against erring public officers and employees, with the ¤It does not require the universal application of the laws
purpose of maintain the dignity of government service. on all persons or things without distinction. This might in
fact sometimes result in unequal protection, as where,for
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process example, a law prohibiting mature books to all persons,
unless required by the Constitution or law. (Lumiqued vs. regardless of age, would benefit the morals of the youth
Exevea, 282 SCRA 125) but violate the liberty of adults. What the clause requires
¤Is an extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before is equality among equals as determined according to
the issuance of a warrant of arrest once the petition for a valid classification. By classification is meant the
extradition is filed in court? grouping of persons or things similar to each other in
¤ Both on statutory and constitutional grounds, the certain particulars and different from all others in these
answer is “no”. In Government of USA vs. Hon. same particulars. (Philippine Judges Association vs.
Puruganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002: Prado, 227 SCRA 703)

1. On the basis of Extradition Law Who are protected—all persons or things similarly
Sec. 6 of PD 1069—Extradition Law, uses the word situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
“immediate” to qualify the arrest of the accused. This conferred & responsibilities imposed. Natural and
qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for juridical persons are entitled to this guarantee; but
hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails with respect to artificial persons, they enjoy the
sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts protection only insofar as their property is concerned.
and arguments from them, and giving them time to Scope:
prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest Political, Economic and Social Equality
subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered Art. XIII, Secs. 1&2 (social justice)—political & economic
“immediate”. The law could not have intended the Section 1—The Congress shall give highest priority to
word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a the enactment of measures that protect & enhance the
means of impairing a sense of urgency and swiftness in right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
the determination of whether a warrant or arrest should economic, & political inequalities, and remove cultural
be issued. inequities by equitably diffusing wealth & political power
By using the phrase “if it appears”, the law further for the common good.
conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
an early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an ownership, use, & disposition of property and its
exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and increments.
actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the Section 2—The promotion of social justice shall include
petition. From the knowledge and the material then the commitment to create economic opportunities based
available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
first impression—a prima facie finding—sufficient to make
a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and Art. XIII, Sec. 3 (protection to labor)—
detention of the accused. Article XII, Section 10 (nationalization of business)
FILIPINO FIRST POLICY—The Congress shall, upon
2. On the basis of the Constitution recommendation of the economic & planning agency,
Even Sec. 2 of Article III does not require a notice and when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of
hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest sixty per centum (60%) of whose capital is owned by such
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may
examination--under oath or affirmation—of complainants prescribe, certain areas of investments.
& the witnesses they may produce. There is no The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the
requirement to notify & hear the accused before the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is
issuance of warrant of arrest. wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, & concessions covering
B. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE— the national economy & patrimony, the State shall give
The equal protection of the law is embraced in the preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall regulate
concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination and exercise authority over foreign investments within its
offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national
has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in goals and priorities.
Section 1 of Article III to provide for a more specific
guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or Art. XII, Sec. 2(2) (reservation of marine resources)—
hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general economic
may be challenged on the basis of the due The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
process clause. But if the particular act assailed archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection exclusively toFilipino citizens.
clause.
Art. III, Sec. 11 (free access to the courts)—political & unconstitutional, because the three branches
economic ofgovernment are similarly situated.
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any Villegas vs. Hui Chiong, the ordinance imposing a work
person by reason of poverty. permit fee of P50.00 upon allaliens desirous of obtaining
employment in the City of Manila was
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (legal aid to the poor)—xxx declaredunconstitutional, because the fee imposed was
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and unreasonable & excessive, & itfailed to consider valid
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, substantial differences in situation among individual aliens
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice whowere required to pay it.
of law, the IBP, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and Sexual Discrimination
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon, 163 SCRA
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, & shall 386, female domesticworking abroad were in a class by
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. themselves because of the special risks to whichtheir class
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial was exposed.
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by
theSupreme Court. Administration of Justice
Chavez vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1988,
Art. IX-C, Sec. 10 (protection of candidates)—political Special grant of exemption infavor of the Marcoses as
Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free contained in the agreement entered into by PCGG
from any form of harassment and discrimination. withMarcos Family to compromise the ill-gotten wealth
cases (exempt from all taxes) filedby the former against
Art. II, Sec. 26 (public service)—The State shall the latter is a CLASS LEGISLATION, vilative of the
guarantee equal access to opportunities for public equalprotection clause.
service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined
by law. Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January
20, 1999, petitioner’s andintervenor’s right to equal
Art. II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men)—The State protection was not violated by the enactment of RA
recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and 8249because the law was not directed only to Kuratong
shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law Baleleng cases. Every classificationmade by law is
ofwomen and men. presumed reasonable, and the party who challenges the
law mustpresent proof of arbitrariness.
There are areas of economic activity which can be
limited to Filipinos. TheConstitution itself acknowledges Public Policy
this in various places - exploitation of marine Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763, The law excluding
wealth(Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 2), certain areas of residents of Mandaue Cityfrom voting for provincial
investment (Article XII, Section 10),to name a few. candidates was justified “as a matter of legislative
discretion”and that equal protection would be violated
In Ichong v. Hernandez, 201 Phil. 1155 (1937), the only if group within the city were allowed tovote while
SC upheld the validity of the law which nationalized the others were not.
retail trade. For the protection of the law can be
observed by the national interest. Olivares vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700, when the
mayor issued permit in favor of unidentified vendors while
But there are areas where aliens cannot be kept away for imposing numerous requirements upon Baclaran Credit
the simple reason that they cannot be deprived of a Cooperatives, he violated the equal protection clause
common means of livelihood, especially when they are when failed to show that the two were not similarly
admitted to the country as immigrants. situated.
Tiu vs. CA, G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999, the
Valid Classification: executive order granting tax & duty incentives only to
Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, business & residents within the “secured area” of
nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis Subic Special Economic Zone and denying them to those
for valid classification. who live within the zone but outside such “fenced in”
territory is VALID.
The requisites are: The Constitution does not require absolute equality among
1. Classification must be based on substantial distinctions residents. It is enough that all persons under like
which make for real differences; circumstances or conditions are given the same privileges
2. The distinction must be germane to the purpose of the & required to follow the same obligations.
law—the distinctions whichare the bases for the Classification based on valid and reasonable standards
classification should have a reasonable relation to the does not violate the equal protection clause.
purpose of the law;
3. Not limited to existing conditions only; and International School Alliance of Educators vs.
4. It must apply to all members of the same class. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, June 1, 2000, there were
no reasonable distinctions between the services rendered
Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, by “foreign-hires” and “local-hires” as to justify the
The withdrawal of frankingprivileges formerly granted to disparity in salaries paid to those teachers.
the judiciary but remained with the executive
andlegislative departments, was declared
Relative Constitutionality: Requisites of a valid warrant:
Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, G.R. No. 1. It must be based upon probable cause—such facts
148208, December 15, 2004, the constitutionality of a and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the
statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a
mere comparison of its provisions of the Constitution cautious man to rely on them & act in pursuance thereof.
since the statute may be constitutionally valid as It consists of a reasonable ground of suspicion
applied to one set of facts and invalid in application to supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
another. themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing
A statute valid at one time may become void at accused to be committing the offense or to be guilty of the
another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if offense.
a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary ¤ For a search warrant—such facts and circumstances
or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
former adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation man to believe that an offense has been committed and
in the light of changed conditions. that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought tobe searched. (Burgos v. Chief of
In Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980), the SC upheld Staff, 133 SCRA 800)
the validity of sec. 4 of Batas Blg. 52 disqualifying retired ¤ For a warrant of arrest—such facts and
elective local officials who have received retirement circumstances which would lead a reasonably and
benefits and would have been 65 years old at the start of prudent man to believe that an offense has been
the term. It does not violate equal protection, for it gives committed by the person sought to be arrested (Webb vs.
younger blood the opportunity to run the local De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995)
government. In Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 385 (1967), 42
search warrants were issued for alleged violation of
In Igot v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980), however, the Central Bank Laws, the Tariff and Customs Code, the NIRC,
disqualification of candidates convicted or simply and the Revised Penal Code. The SC voided the
charged with national security offenses was struck warrants on the ground that it was impossible for the
down as unconstitutional, for violating the presumption judge to have found probable cause in view of the number
of innocence and thus ultimately the equal political of laws alleged to have been violated by the
protection. petitioner. How could he even know what particular
Sec. 2, Article III provision of each law had been violated? If he did not
Searches and Seizures know this, how could it be determined if the person
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, against whom the warrant was issued was probably guilty
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable thereof? In truth, this was a fishing expedition, which
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any violated the sanctity of domicile and privacy of
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or communications. To establish the requirement of
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause probable cause, the rule is: One crime, one warrant.
to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the 2. The probable cause must be determined personally by
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and the judge. The judge shall:
particularly describing the place to be searched and the a. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
persons or things to be seized. documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding
the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof,
Scope: The protection is available to all persons, including issue a warrant of arrest; or
aliens, whether accused of crime or not. Artificial persons b. If the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the
required to open their books of accounts for examination submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him
by the State in the exercise of police and taxing powers. in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable
The right is personal; it may be invoked only by the cause.
person entitled to it (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA ¤Under the 1987 Constitution, only a judge can issue a
383). As such, the right may be waived either expressly warrant; the offensive & much abused phrase "& other
or impliedly, but the waiver must be made by the responsible officer as may be authorized by law" in the
person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not 1973 Constitution has been removed.
duly authorized to effect such waiver. (People vs. Search warrant Warrant of arrest
Damaso, 212 SCRA 457) ¤ The judge must personall ¤ It is not necessary that the
examined in the form of judge should personally
SEARCH WARRANT—may be said to particularly describe searching Q&As, in writing examined the complainant &
& under oath, the his witnesses; the judge would
the things to be seized when the description therein is as
complainant & any witnesses simply personally review the
specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when he may produce on facts initial determination of
the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, personally known to them. theprosecutor to see if it is
by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the supported substantial evidence.
search and seizure; or when the things described are ¤ The determination of
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense probable cause depends to ¤ Judge determines the
for which the warrant is being issued. a large extent upon the probability, not the certainty, of
finding or opinion of the the and, in so doing, guilt of the
WARRANT OFARREST—said to particularly describe the judge who conducted the accused,and in so doing, he
required examinationthe need not conduct a de novo
person to be seized if it contains the name of the person
applicant and the witnesses. hearing.
to be arrested.
3. The determination must be made after examination banners, and typewriters, tape recorders, etc." was again
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the invalidated for the description was not at all particular or
witnesses he may produce. The examination conducted specific, thus making the warrants general warrants.
by the judge takes the form of searching questions.
When it comes to printed matters, the offensive
The requirement that the judge must personally material need not be set out in full. It is enough if it
examine the complainant and his witnesses means that specifies the issues and the title of the articles. The
the actual examination cannot be delegated to someone instruction to seize "subversive materials" is not valid
else, like the clerk of court. because the determination of whether a material is
subversive or not is not for the police officer to
So said the Court in Bache and Co. (Phil) v. Ruiz, 37 decide; no unfettered discretion must be granted to him.
SCRA 823 (1971). In this case, when the BIR agent and his The matter is different if goods were searched and
witnesses arrived in court in the middle of a hearing, the seized because of their intrinsic quality (as when they are
judge suspended the hearing and directed the branch stolen or smuggled), than if the goods were searched for
clerk to examine & take the testimony of the witnesses in the ideas they contain (as when a "subversive newspaper
his chambers. After he was through with the hearing, is sought). In the latter case, a more detailed description
he went back to his chambers and finding that the of the physical features of the item is required to avoid
examination was finished, asked the BIR agent and his delegating the appreciation of ideas, and thus threaten
witnesses if they affirmed what they what they testified free expression.
to, after which he issued the search warrant in question.
The determination of the reasonableness of the Properties subject to Seizure:
judicial warrant must be based on the affidavit of one 1. Property subject of the offense;
who has personal knowledge of the facts to which he 2. Property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
testifies. fruits of the offense; and
¤The testimony cannot be based on mere belief. Neither 3. Property used or intended to be used as the means of
can it be based on a report. Otherwise, the warrant is committing an offense.
void.
Permissible Area of Search:
Thus, in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, (1984), In People vs. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2002,
reiterating the 1937 case of Rodriguez v. Villamiel, the the warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a
testimony based on a military report that the newspaper lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one
We Forum was used for subversive were held to be not a arrested to include the premises or surroundings under
personal knowledge & so was inadmissible. his immediate control.

Likewise, in Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 (1985), the Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence:
testimony based on investigation reports that certain Articles illegally seized are not admissible as evidence.
items in the Philippine Times were subversive were held The rule has been constitutionally affirmed in Section
to be not personal knowledge, and thus the search 3(2), Article III, which provides that such evidence“shall
warrant issued was not valid. be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” Such
evidence is the fruit of the poisonous tree. However, it is
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched submitted that it may nonetheless be used in the judicial
and the persons or things to be seized. or administrative action that may be filed against the
Search warrant Warrant of arrest officer responsible for its illegal seizure.
¤ The description of the ¤ General warrants are
property to be seized need proscribed & unconstitutional. It has also been held that where the accused did not
not be technically accurate However,a John Doe Warrant raise the issue of theadmissibility of the evidence against
nor necessarily precise, and (a warrant for the apprehension
him on the ground that it had been illegally seized, such
its nature will necessarily of a person whose true name is
omission constitutes a waiver of the protection granted
vary according to whether unknown) satisfies the
the identity of the property constitutional requirement of by Section 3, and the illegally seized evidence could then
or its character is a matter particularity if there is some be admitted against him.(People vs. Exala, 221 SCRA 494)
of concern; the description descriptio personae which will WARRANTLESS ARREST—
is required to be specific enable the officer to identify 1. When a person to be arrested has committed, is
only insofar as the the accused. actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
circumstances will allow. offense;
Failure to state with particularity the place to be searched 2. When an offense has just been committed and he has
and items to be seized makes the warrant used for fishing probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
evidence (a general warrant) which is void. of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, the description which read 3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee or a
"subversive documents,leaflets, papers to promote the detention prisoner. (§5, R113, Rules of Crim Procedure)
objective of the Movement for a Free Philippines, the ¤The Rule requires that the accused perform some overt
Light a Fire Movement, and the April 6 Movement" act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
were held not to be particular descriptions, thus making committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
the warrant a general warrant. The officer arresting a person who has just committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an offense must have
In Corro v. Lising, the search and seizure of "printed personal knowledge of the fact. The offense must also be
copies and dummies of Philippine Times, subversive committed in his presence or within his view. (People vs.
documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets, Tudtud & Bolong, G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003)
 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
(a) When search is made of moving vehicles precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental
The reason is the person may escape easily if a search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large
warrant has to be applied for the mean time. In the majorityof these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely
Tariff and Customs Code, customs agents are used as a pretext for conducting asearch. In this instance,
specifically authorized to search and seize vehicles even the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before
without a warrant. a search can be made—the process cannot be reversed.
Checkpoints are valid in some instances
depending on the purpose (e.g. apprehend a suspected In the case of People vs. Go, 354 SCRA 338 (2001), the
criminal) and the circumstances (e.g. probable cause that police saw the gun tucked in appellant’s waist when he
the criminal is inside the car). There is no question that stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was
when a child has been reported kidnapped in a conducted as none was necessary. Accused-appellant
community, the police can stop all cars and check if the could not show any license for the firearm, whether at the
detained child is in any one of them. time of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect
committing a crime in the presence of the police officers.
(b) When search is an incident to a valid arrest. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a situation, it
being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules.
Rule 126, Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest-- As a consequence of appellant’s valid warrantless arrest,
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as anything which may used as proof of the commission
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search of an offense, without a search warrant, as provided in
warrant. Rule 126, Section 12. This is a valid search incidental to a
A person arrested may be searched for dangerous lawful arrest. The subsequent discovery in his car of drug
weapons or anything that proves the commission of the paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which, was
offense. It follows that the search can only be made later identified as shabu, though in a distant place from
within the area of control of the arrested person, and where the illegal possession of firearms was committed,
within the time of the arrest. cannot be said to have been made during an illegal. As
such, the seized items do not fall within the exclusionary
In Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985), clause. Hence, not being fruits of the poisonous tree, the
Milagros Roque and Cynthia Nolasco were arrested at the objects found at the scene of the crime, such as the
intersection of Mayon and Margal Streets in QC at 11:30 firearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can be
a.m., having been wanted as high officers of the CPP. used as evidenced against appellant. Besides, it has been
At 12:00 noon, Roque's apartment located 2 blocks held that drugs discovered as a result of a consented
away, was searched and some documents seized. The SC search is admissible in evidence.
at first held that the search was valid even if the warrant
issued was void for failing to describe with particularity In People vs. Molina, 352 SCRA 174 (2001), to constitute
the things to be seized, because it was an incident of a a valid in flagrante delito arrest, two (2) requisites must
valid arrest. concur: 1) the person to be arrested must execute
But after the EDSA revolution, the reconstituted an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
SC granted the motion for reconsideration and held that actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
just because there was a valid arrest did not mean that and 2) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the search was likewise valid. To be valid, the search the view of the arresting officer.
must be "incidental" to the arrest, i.e., not separated by
time or place from the arrest. If the basis for allowing In People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21,
incidental searches is looked into, one can see that this 2003, the arresting officer may take from the arrested
situation is not one involving a valid incidental search. individual any money or property found upon the
The law allows the arresting officer to search a latter’s person that which:
person validly arrested (by frisking him for instance) 1. Was used in the commission of the crime;
because (1) a weapon held by the arrested person may be 2. Was the fruit of the crime;
turned against his captor and (2) he may destroy the 3. May provide the person arrested with the means of
proof of the crime, if the arrested officer has to first apply committing violence or escaping;
for a search warrant from a judge. 4. May be used in evidence in the trial of the case.
If, in the Nolasco case, the search was conducted
30 minutes after the arrest, there is no longer any danger The search, however, must be contemporaneous to the
that the captured may turn against the captor; and if the arrest and made within a permissible area of search.
documents in the apartment were 2 blocks away, the
search would no longer be justified since there is no way Requisite: the apprehending officer must have been
for Roque to go back to the apartment and destroy the spurred by probable cause in effecting the arrest which
documents, having been arrested already. could be considered as one in cadence with the instances
of permissible arrest enumerated in Section 5(a), Rule 113
In People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, while a of the Rules of Court.
contemporaneous search of a person arrested may be
effected to discover dangerous weapons or proofs or In the case of People vs. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872,
implements used in the commission of the crime and January 30, 1998, the officer could reasonably assume—
which search may extend to the area within his since the informant was by their side and had so
immediate control where he might gain possession of a informed them and pointed out the culprit—that the
weapon or evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest must drugs were in the appellant’s luggage, and it would
precede the search. The process cannot be reversed. have been irresponsible, if not downright absurd, for
them to adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude at the risk of The interest of effective crime prevention and detection
eventually losing their quarry. allows a police officer to approach a person, in
appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes
(c) When things seized are within plain view of a of investigating possible criminal behavior even though
searching party there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual
People vs. Hedishi Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670, October 23, arrest.
2003, whenever the right against unreasonable search
and seizure is challenged, an individual may choose Requisites for Stop-and-Frisk
between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving 1. The police officer should properly introduce himself
his right by giving consent to the search and seizure. A and make the initial inquiries, approach and restrain a
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly
case. concealed weapons.
2. The apprehending officer must have a genuine reason
Plain View Doctrine—finds application only when the to warrant the belief that the person to be held has
incriminating nature of the object is in the “plain view” of weapons or contraband concealed about him.
the police officer. It should, therefore, be emphasized that a search and
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an seizure should precede the arrest for the principle of stop-
intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can and-frisk to apply.
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of (e) When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily
evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be and intelligently.
open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. It is Waiver cannot be implied from the fact that the
clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is person consented or did not object to the search, for it
plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the many happen that he did so only out of respect for the
object is inside a closed container. Where the object authorities. The waiver must be expressly made. It must
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not be given by the person whose right is violated.
in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a
warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, In People vs. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, July 11,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, 2002, the shabu in the baggage of the accused was
or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the found by (private) security officers of the interisland
contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other passenger vessel who then reported the matter to the
words, if the package is such that an experienced Philippine Coast Guard. The search and seizure of the
observer could infer from its appearance that it contains suitcase and contraband items were carried out without
the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in government intervention. Accordingly, the exclusionary
plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police rule may not be invoked.
that the items that they observe may be evidence of a (f) Searches of vessel and aircraft for violation of fishery,
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. immigration and customs law
(People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668) (g) Searches of automobiles at borders or constructive
Requisites: borders for violation of immigration and smuggling laws
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in (h) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations
official duties; (i) Conduct of “areal target zoning” and “saturation
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the drive” in the exercise of military powers of the President
police who have the right to be where they are; (j) Visual search at checkpoints
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without Constitutionality of checkpoints and "areal target
further search. zonings"; doctrine of exigent circumstances
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches
(d) Stop-and-Frisk and seizures is a personal right and can be invoked only
It is defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a by those whose rights have been infringed, or threatened
police officer to stop acitizen on the street, interrogate to be infringed. Not all searches and seizures are
him, and pat him for weapons where a police officer prohibited. Those which are reasonable arenot forbidden.
observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public
to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to
may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists’
the course of investigating this behavior he identified right to “free passage without interruption,” but it cannot
himself as a policeman and make reasonable inquiries, be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention
and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter of travellers during which the vehicle’s occupants are
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as
safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself or the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected
others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of to a body search and the inspection of the vehicle is
the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be
discover weapons which might be used to assault him. regarded as violative of an individual’s right against
unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when
conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.
The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited
gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would materials or substances are found, such would be subject
be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized agents to seizure.
were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would These announcements place passengers on notice that
also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. ordinary constitutional protection against warrantless
Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
know that they only need a car to be able to easily procedures.
perpetrate their malicious designs.
There is no need for checkpoints to be announced. People vs. Susan Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27,
Not only it would be impractical, it would also forewarn 2002, a search made pursuant to a routine airport
those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of security procedure is allowed under RA 6235, which
legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from provides that every airline ticket shall contain a condition
their fixed location and the regularized manner in which that hand-carried luggage, etc., shall be subject to
they are operated. (People vs. Usana, 323 SCRA 754) search, and this condition shall form part of the
contract between the passenger and the air carrier. To
Knock and Announce Principle— limit the action of the airport security personnel to simply
General Rule: Police officers are obliged to give refusing the passenger entry into the aircraft and sending
notice, show their authority anddemand that they be her home (as suggested by the appellant), and thereby
allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or depriving the security personnel of “ability and facility to
inner door or window of a house to execute the search act accordingly, including to further search without
warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be
are refused entry to the place of directed search. sanctioned impotence and ineffectiveness in law
enforcement, to the detriment of the society.” The strip
Exceptions: Unannounced intrusion into the premises is search in the ladies’ room was justified under the
permissible when: circumstances.
1. A party whose premises or is entitled to the possession Procedure for Seizure of Pornographic Materials:
thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it; To justify a warrantless search as an incident to a lawful
2. When such person already knew of the identity of the arrest, the arrest must be on account of a crime having
officers and of their authority and persons; been committed; .(Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362)
3. When the officers are justified in the honest belief that 1. There must be a criminal charge against the person for
there is an imminent peril to life or limb; purveying the porno materials;
4. When those in the premises, aware of the presence 2. Application for search warrant must be obtained from
of someone outside, are then engaged in an activity the judge;
which justifies the officers to believe that an escape or 3. Materials must be brought to court in the prosecution
the destruction of evidence is being attempted. (People of the accused for the crime charged;
vs. Huang Zhen Hua and Lee,G.R. No. 139301, September 4. Determination whether the items confiscated are
29, 2004) pornographic materials;
5. Judgment rendered by the court
In People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures Sec. 3, Article III
refers to the immunity of one’s person from (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence
interference by government and it cannot be extended to shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion. prescribed by law.
¤Do the ordinary right against unreasonable searches (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
and seizures apply to searches conducted at the airport preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
pursuant to routine airport security procedures? in any proceeding.
¤ In the case of People vs. Leila Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, The guarantee includes within the mantle of its protection
December 18, 2000, persons may lose the protection of tangible, as well as intangible objects. (See RA 4200
the search and seizure clause by exposure of their below)
persons or property to the public in a manner Exceptions to inviolability:
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, 1. Lawful order of the court;
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as 2. When public safety or orders requires otherwise, as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security may be provided by law.
procedures. With increased concern over airplane ¤Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at Yes. The essence of privacy is “the right to be left alone”.
the nation’s airports. Passengers attempting to board It is expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of Article III.
an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their Other facts of the right to privacy are protected in various
carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage, are provisions of the Bill of Rights, i.e., Sections 1 (right to
routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these due process clause), 2 (right against unreasonable
procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, searches and seizures), 6 (right to liberty of abode
physical searches are conducted to determine what the and of changing the same, as well as the right to travel), 8
objects are. There is little question that such searches are (freedom of association) and 17 (right against self-
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity incrimination). (Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23,
of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy 1988)
expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, Zones of privacy recognized and protected in our laws:
travelers are often notified through airport public 1. The Civil Code provides that “every person shall respect
address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons” and punishes asactionable Exempted acts:
torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into A. Use of such record or any copies thereof as
the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
employee or any private individual liable for damages for offenses mentioned below: [Secs. 1, par. 2]
any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, B. Any peace officer, who is authorized by the
and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private written order of the Court (RTC within whose territorial
communications. jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are
2. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of to be executed), to execute any of the acts declared to be
secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial unlawful in cases involving thecrimes of: [Sec. 3, par. 1]
secrets, and trespass to dwelling. 1. treason
3. Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) —invasion of privacy. 2. espionage
4. Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405) 3. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
5. Intellectual Property Law (RA 8293) 4. piracy
6. Rules of Court —on privileged communication likewise 5. mutiny in the high seas
recognize the privacy of certain information [Sec. 24, Rule 6. rebellion
130(c), Revised Rules on Evidence] 7. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
8. inciting rebellion
RA 4200 Anti-Wire Tapping Act 9. sedition
It prohibits any person not being authorized by all 10. conspiracy to commit sedition
parties to any private communication or spoken word, 11. inciting to sedition
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or 12 kidnapping as defined by the RPC
arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record the 13.violations of CA 616, punishing espionage and other
same, or to communicate the content thereof to any offenses against national security
person. The WRITTEN ORDER shall only be issued or
The use of said record may be permitted in the following granted upon written application with the examination
instances: under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the
1. In civil or criminal proceedings involving certain witnesses he may produce and must show:
specified offenses principally affecting national security; a) That there are reasonable grounds to believe
and that any of the crimes enumerated herein has been
2. When authorized by the court which may be issued committed or is being committed provided, that in cases
under the following conditions: involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and
a. The constitutional requirements for the issuance of a proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
warrant should be complied with; and sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, such authority
b. The authority shall be effective only for sixty (60) days. shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or
Any evidence obtained in violation of this law is not acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or
admissible in any proceeding. are being committed;
b) That there are reasonable grounds to believe
RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any that evidence may be obtained essential to the conviction
person, not authorized by all parties to any private of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the
communication, to secretly record such communications prevention of,any of such crimes;
by means of a tape recorder. The law does not make c) That there are no other means readily available
any distinction. A telephone extension is not among the for obtaining such evidence.
devices covered by this law. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA
112) Contents:
1. The identity of the person or persons whose
Navarro vs. CA, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999, two communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken
local media men in Lucena City went to the police words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and,
station to report alleged indecent show in one night in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications,
establishment in the City. At the station, there was a the telegraph line and the telephone number involved
heated argument between police officer Navarro and and its location;
Lingan, one of the two media men, which led to fisticuffs. 2. The identity of the peace officer authorized to
Lingan fell and his head hit the pavement which caused overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
his death. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man, conversations, discussions, or spoken words;
testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his testimony 3. The offense or offenses sought to be committed or
was a voice recording he had made of the heated prevented; and
discussion at the police station between accused police 4. The period of the authorization.
officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which was Effectivity: The authorization shall be effective for the
taken without the knowledge of the two. The SC held period specified in the order which shall not exceed 60
that Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed by the voice days from the date of issuance of the order, unless
recording he had made. It may be asked whether the tape extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied
is admissible in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.
tapping. The answer is in the ffirmative. The law prohibits ADMISSIBILITY
the overhearing, intercepting or recording of private Any communication or spoken word, or the
communications. Since the exchange between petitioner existence contents, substance, purport, effect or
Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
not prohibited. information therein contained, obtained or secured by
any person in violation of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or ¤Should in camera inspection of bank accounts be
administrative hearing or allowed? ¤ Before an in camera inspection may be
investigation. allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of
competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be
Exclusionary Rule clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject
Art. III, Sec. 3. xxx matter of the pending case before the court of
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the
(privacy of communication and correspondence) or the account holder must be notified to be present during the
preceding section (unreasonable searches and seizures) inspection, and such inspection may cover only the
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. account identified in the pending case.
One of the remedies of one who was victimized by
an illegal search is to ask for the suppression of the things In Union Bank vs. CA, Section 2 of the Law on
seized and the evidence illegally taken. Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended, declares bank
The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of any deposit to be absolutely confidential except:
evidence obtained in violation of Sections 2 and 3 (1), Art. 1. In an examination made in the course of special or
III for "any purpose" and in "any proceeding." The general examination of a bank that is specifically
evidence is absolutely useless. This has not always been authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied
the case. that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank
fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being
In Moncado v. People's Court (1948), the SC, committed and that it is necessary to look into deposit to
following the U.S. case of Wolf V. Colorado, rules that establish such fraud or irregularity;
evidence illegally obtained is not necessarily excluded if 2. In an examination made by an independent auditor
is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. In hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided
such case, the evidence admitted, without prejudice to that the examination is for audit purposes only and the
any criminal, civil or administrative liability of the officer results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank;
who illegally seized it. In other words, the admissibility of 3. Upon written permission of the depositor;
the evidence is not effected by the illegality of the means 4. In case of impeachment;
by which it was acquired. 5. Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
It was in Stonehill v. Diokno, supra, following the dereliction of duty of public officials; or
U.S. case of Maop v. Ohio1969, when the exclusionary 6. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the
rule was first adopted in the Philippines, the SC noting subject matter of the litigation.
thatthe total suppression of the thing seized is the only In the case of Marquez vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882,
effective means of ensuring the constitutional right which June 27, 2001, there isyet no pending litigation before any
it seeks to preserve. The Court noted, the insufficiency of court of competent authority. What is existing is an
the other remedies (e.g. action for damages, criminal investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. In
punishment, resistance), especially in the Philippines short, what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish
where violations were committed by those in power and to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally
were thus equipped with the pardoning power to water charge Amado Lagdameo, et al., with the Sandiganbayan.
down the gravity of the other penalties imposed to Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would
violators of those constitutional rights. warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.
The victim may or may not get back the thing
seized, depending on whether it is contraband or not. It Human Security Act of 2007
the thing is contraband, it would not be returned, and Section 3, HAS of 2007, provides that the authorities may,
only its suppression can be asked for. But if the thing is upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
legal, the party can ask for its return, even if no criminal intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
prosecution has yet been filed, as in the Stonehill case. kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment
or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of
Civil Action for Damages any suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
A civil case for damages can also be filed pursuant to communication, message, conversation, discussion, or
Article 32 of the Civil Code. spoken or written words between members of
In Aberca v. Ver, the SC held that even if the terrorist group. Provided, That surveillance,
privilege of the writ is suspended, the court can interception and recording of communications between
nevertheless entertain an action not only against the task lawyers and clients, doctor and patients, journalists
force but even against the top ranking officials who and their sources and confidential business
ordered the seizure, to recover damages for the illegal correspondence shall not be authorized.
searches and seizures made in a despotic manner. By Sec. 4, Article III
so doing, one can indirectly inquire into the validity of No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
the suspension of the privilege. of expression, or the press, or the right of the people
Ramirez vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590, RA 4200 clearly and peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not redress of grievances.
authorized by all parties to any private communication, The rule on privileged communications has its genesis not
to secretly record such communications by means of a in the nation’s penal code but in the Bill of Rights of the
tape recorder. The law does not make a distinction. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the
Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699, the right may be invoked press. As early as 1918, in US vs. Cañete, 38 Phil
against the wife who went to the clinic of her husband 253, the SC ruled that publications which are privileged
and there took documents consisting of private for reasons of public policy are protected by the
communications between her husband and his alleged constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. This
paramour. constitutional right cannot be abolished by the mere
failure of the legislature to give it express recognition in 2. Dangerous Tendency Rule—words uttered create a
the statute punishing libel. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1) dangerous tendency of an evil which State has the right to
prevent.
The freedom to speak includes the right to be silent. This 3. Balancing of Interest Test—when particular conduct is
freedom includes also includes the right to an audience, in regulated in interest of public order, and the regulation
the sense that the State cannot prohibit the people from results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment
hearing what a person has to say, whatever be the quality of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which
of his thoughts. This right, however, is not demandable of the 2 conflicting interests demand greater
against those unwilling to listen, who may not be herded protection under the particular circumstances
by the government into a captive audience. presented.
Types of Privileged Communications: In the case of Adiong vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 713, the
1. Absolutely privileged communications—those which SC held that the posting of decals and stickers on cars,
are not actionable even if the author acted in bad faith. calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving vehicles
An example is found in Article VI, Section 11 which needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the
exempts a member of Congress from liability for any preference of the citizens becomes crucial in this kind of
speech or debate inthe Congress or in any Committee propaganda, not the financial resources of the candidate.
thereof. The owner can even prepare his own decals or stickers for
2. Qualifiedly privileged communications—those posting on his personal property. To strike down this right
contained defamatory imputations are not actionable and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his
unless found to have been made without good intention liberties. The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers
or justifiable motive. To this genre belong “private on “mobile” places whether public or private except in
communications” and “fair and true report without any authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes
comments or remarks.” censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.
Freedom of Expression— Elements: Doctrine of Fair Comment— Fair commentaries on
1. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint; and matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment. valid defense in an action for libel or slander.It means
Free speech and free press may be identified with the that while in general every discreditable imputation
liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of publicly made is deemed false, because every man is
public interest without censorship and punishment. There presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved,
is to be no previous restraint on the communication and every false imputation is deemed malicious,
of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is
prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is
contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable
present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must
right to prevent. (Chavez vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338, either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on
February 15, 2008) a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of
Sec. 18, Article III opinion, based on established facts, it is immaterial that
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his the opinion happens to be mistaken,as long as it might
political beliefs and aspirations. Freedom from reasonably inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs.CA,301
subsequent punishment SCRA1)

Restrictions on Free Speech: Right to Assemble and Petition Government

1. Content-based Restrictions—are imposed because of The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and
the content of the speech itself; distort public debate, may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a
have improper motivation, and are usually imposed permit or authorization from the government authorities.
because of fear how people will react to a particular However, the right must be exercised in such a way as
speech. will not prejudice the public welfare.
Subject to the Clear-and-Present danger Rule Test If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for
the use of such place, and not for the assembly itself may
In Sanidad vs. COMELEC, a rule prohibiting columnists, be validly required. Power of local officials is merely for
commentators, and announcers from campaigning either regulation and not for prohibition. (Primicias vs. Fugoso,
for or against an issue in a plebiscite must have L-1800, January 27, 1948)
compelling reason to support it, or it will not pass muster
under strict scrutiny. Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is
These restrictions are censorial and therefore they to be held in:
bear a heavy presumption of constitutional validity. In a. A private place;
addition, they will be tested for possible overbreadth and b. The campus of a government-owned or operated
vagueness. educational institution; or
2. Content-neutral Restrictions—are those which are c. A freedom park.
not concerned with the content of the speech.
The clear-and-present danger rule is inappropriate as The provisions of BP 880 (Public Assembly Act of
a test for determining the constitutional validity of laws. 1985) are not absolute ban on public assemblies but a
restriction that simply regulates the time, place and
Tests for a valid Governmental Interference: manner of the assemblies. The Court referred to it as
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule—when words are used content-neutral regulation.
in such circumstance and of such nature as to create a
clear and present danger that will bring about substantive
evil that the state has the right to prevent.
 Test for Lawful Assembly: Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256, to
1. Purpose Test—the purpose for which the assembly is compel students to take part in a flag ceremony when it is
held regardless of the auspices under which it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious
organized; and freedom. Petitioners have the right to refuse to salute to
2. Auspices Test. the Philippine flag on account of their religious freedom.
In the case of Bayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838,
April 25, 2006, Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA, 259 SCRA 529, the INC’s postulate
serves no valid purpose if it means the something else. that its religious freedom is per se beyond review of the
Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be that MTRCB should be rejected. Its public broadcast on TV of
mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance, its religious programs brings it out of the bosom of
which specifically means “the highest degree of restraint internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches
that the military, police and other peace keeping even the eyes and ears of children. The exercise of
authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it
dispersal of the same. will bring about the clear and present danger of a
substantive evil which the State is duty-bound to
Sec. 5, Article III prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of interest of public health, public morals, or public
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for continues to be a volatile area of concern in our society
the exercise of civil or political rights. today. “For sure, we shall continue to subject any act
pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a
Religion—any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational
etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy exercise to the irrationality of a man. For when religion
It is a profession of faith to an active power that binds and divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not
elevates man to his Creator. (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201) stand still.”
Freedom of Religion— Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 144801, March
1. Non-Establishment Clause 10, 2005, expulsion/excommunication of members of a
Scope: religious institution/organization is a matter best left to
a. State cannot set-up church; the discretion of the officials, and the laws and
b. Cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the
or prefer one over another; courts to exercise control over church authorities in the
c. Nor influence a person to go to or remain away from performance of their discretionary and official
church against his will; nor functions. Rather, it is for the members of the religious
d. Force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. institution/organization to conform to just church
regulations.
2. Freedom of Religious Belief and Worship Religious Tests
Dual aspect of Freedom of Religious Belief and Worship: The constitutional prohibition against religious tests is
a. Freedom to believe—absolute as long as the belief is aimed against clandestine attempts on the part of the
confined within the realm of thought; and government to prevent a person from exercising his civil
b. Freedom to act on one’s belief—subject to or political rights because of his religious beliefs.
regulation where the belief is translated into external
acts that affect the public welfare. Sec. 6, Article III
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
Ecclesiastical Affair—it involves the relationship between limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
the church and its members and relates to matters of upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of travel be impaired except in the interest of national
the congregation to which the state cannot meddle. security, public safety, or public health, as may be
Benevolent Neutrality—recognizes that government provided by law.
must pursue its secular goals and interest but at the same Liberty of Abode and Travel
time strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest The purpose of the guaranty is to further emphasize the
extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, individual’s liberty as safeguarded in general terms by
although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, the due process clause. Liberty under that clause includes
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of the right to choose one’s residence, to leave it whenever
morality based on religion, provided it does not offend he pleases, and to travel where he wills.
compelling state interests. Limitation on Liberty of Abode: upon Lawful order of the
Three (3)-Step process of the compelling State Interest Test: court
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden Restrictions on Right to Travel:
on the free exercise of religion? 1. Interest of national security;
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to 2. Public safety;
justify this infringement of religious liberty? 3. Public health; or
4. Any person on bail.
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used
the least intrusive means possible so that the free In Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil 851, a maid has the right to
exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to transfer to another residence even if she had not yet paid
achieve the legitimate goal of the state? (Estrada vs. the amount advanced for her transportation from the
Escritor, A.M. No. P-021651, June 22, 2006) province by an employment agency which was then
effectively detaining her.
Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the Mayor of Manila arrest, detention and prosecution; and
was not sustained by the SC when he deported some 170 4. Other confidential information. The Ethical
women of ill-repute to Davao, for the admittedly Standards Act further prohibits public officials and
commendable purpose of ridding the city for serious employees from using or divulging “confidential or
moral and health problems. These women are classified information to the public.” [Section 7 (c), RA
nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens 6713] Other acknowledged limitations to information
protected by the same constitutional guarantees as are access include diplomatic correspondence, closed door
other citizens—to change their domicile from Manila to Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either House
another locality. of congress, as well as the internal deliberations of the SC.
Rubi vs. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660, the respondents (Chavez vs. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744)
were justified in requiring the members of certain non-
Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their Rights guaranteed:
better education, advancement and protection. The 1. Right to information on matters of public concern; and
measure was held to be a legitimate exercise of police 2. Corollary right of access to official records and
power. documents
Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595, health
officers may restrict access to contaminated areas and BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 177271 and 177314,
also quarantine those already exposed to the disease May 4, 2007, the right to information is a public right
sought to be contained. where the real parties in interest are the public, or the
Zemel vs. Rusk, 381 US 1, the Secretary of State may citizens to be precise. The people’s right to know is limited
regulate or even prohibit the travel of citizens to hostile to matters of public concern and is further subject to such
countries to prevent possible international limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the policy
misunderstanding and conflict. of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving
Section 26 of HAS of 2007—cases where evidence of guilt “public interest’ and is subject to reasonable conditions
is not strong, and theperson charged with the crime of prescribed by law.
terrorism as therein defined is entitled to bail and if
granted the same, the court, upon application by the Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRa 256—the
prosecutor, shall limit the right to travel of the accused to information sought must be “matters of public concern,”
within the municipality or city where he resides or where access to which may be limited by law. The information
the case is pending, in the interest of national security and sought by petitioners is the truth of reports that
public safety. certain Members of the Batasan Pambansa belonging
to the opposition were able to secure ‘clean’ loans from
Sec. 7, Article III the GSIS immediately before the February 7, 1986
The right of the people to information on matters of election through the intercession of the former First Lady
public concerned shall be recognized. Access to official Imelda Marcos. x x x The public nature of the loanable
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter
government research data used as basis for policy of public interest and concern.
development, shall be afforded the citizens, subject to Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, the SC affirmed the
such limitations as may be provided by law. right of the petitioner to secure from the Civil Service
Commission information regarding the civil service
Right of the People to Information on Matters of Public Concern: eligibility of certain persons employed in the health
The citizen has a right to know what is going on in the department of the Cebu City government.
country and in his government so he can express his
views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently. One Sec. 8, Article III
cannot question the extravagance of the government, The right of the people, including those employed in the
for example, if is denied examination of official public and private sectors, to form unions, associations,
vouchers. A citizen may not expose anomaly if those or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
responsible for it may validly prevent him from abridged.
investigating their activities. In the interest of truth and
fairness, the citizen should not be made to guess only at Right to Form associations—shall not be impaired
what is being done by public functionaries and to base his without due process of law; guarantees the right not to
views and conclusions on mere rumors, half-truths, join an association. (Sta. Clara Homeowners Association
conjectures and even canards. vs. Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, January 23, 2002)
Recognized restrictions: This right is especially meaningful in a free society
1. National security matters and intelligence because a man is by nature gregarious. His disposition to
information—this jurisdiction recognizes the common mix with others of the same persuasions, interests or
law holding that there is a governmental privilege objectives is guaranteed by this provision. It also
against public disclosure with respect to state secrets expressly guarantees to those employed in the public
regarding military, diplomatic and other national security and private sectors the right to form unions. This right is
matters; available also to those in the government sectors. It is a
2. Trade or industrial secrets—(pursuant to the settled in jurisprudence that, in general, workers in the
Intellectual Property Code, RA 8293 and other related public sectors do not enjoy the right to strike. The general
laws and banking transactions—pursuant to the Secrecy rule in the past and up to present is that the ‘terms and
of Bank Deposits Act, RA 1405); conditions of employment in the Government,
3. Criminal matters, such as those relating to the including any political subdivision or instrumentality
apprehension, the prosecution and the detention of thereof are governed by law.’ x x x. Since the terms and
criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such conditions of government employment are fixed by law,
government workers cannot use the same weapons subject to change from time to time, as the general well-
employed by the workers in the private sector to secure being of the community may require, or the
concessions from their employers. The principle behind circumstances may change, or as experience may
labor unionism in private industry is that industrial demonstrate the necessity.
peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. The purpose of the impairment clause is to
Relations between private employers and their safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements
employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. x x x In against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule,
government employment, however, it is the legislature they should be respected by the legislature and not
and, where properly given delegated power, the tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the
administrative heads of government which fix the intention of the parties or modify their rights and
terms and conditions of employment. And this is obligations. The will of the obligor and the obligee must
effected through statutes or administrative circulars, be observed; the obligation of their contract must not be
rules and regulations, not through collective bargaining impaired.
agreements. (Alliance of Concerned Government Workers However, the protection of the impairment clause is
vs. Ministry of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA 1) not absolute. There are instances when contracts valid
at the time of their conclusion may become invalid, or
In the case of Jacinto vs. CA, 281 SCRA 657, the SC some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or
held that petitioners were not penalized for the exercise illegal, by virtue of supervening legislation.
of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the Limitations:
government for a redress of grievances. Rather, the Civil 1. Police power—prevails over contracts;
Service Commission found them guilty of conduct 2. Eminent domain—may impair obligation of contracts;
prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having and
absented 3. Taxation—cannot impair obligation of contracts.
themselves without proper authority, from their school
during regular school days, in order to participate in the Impairment—anything that diminishes the efficacy of a
mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting in the contract .
nonholding of classes and in the deprivation of students There is impairment when there is change in the
of education, for which they were responsible. Had terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the
petitioners availed themselves of their free time— time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions,
recess, after classes, weekends or holidays—to or dispenses with expressed, or authorizes for its
dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the satisfaction something different from that provided in its
proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one—not terms. (Clemons vs. Nolting, No. 17959, January 24,
the DECS, the CSC or even 1922)
the SC—could have held them liable for the valid
exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. As it Hon. Heherson Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc., G.R.
was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from No. 162243, November 29, 2006, in unequivocal terms,
their activity necessarily disrupted public services, the the SC have consistently held that such licenses
very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition concerning the harvesting of timber in the country’s
against strikes by government workers. Their act by their forests cannot be considered contracts that would bind
nature was enjoined by the Civil Service Law, rules and the Government regardless of changes in policy and the
regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made demands of public interest and welfare. Since timber
answerable. licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause
cannot be invoked.
GSIS vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS, G. R.
No. 170132, December 6, 2006, it was against the
backdrop of the provisions of the Constitution that the
Court resolved that employees in the public service may
not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of work; that the right of government
employees to organize is limited to the formation of
unions or associations, without including the right to
strike. It may be, as the appellate court urged, that the
freedom of expression and assembly and the right to
petition the government for a redress of grievances stand
on a level higher than economic and other liberties.

Sec. 9, Article III

Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.(See discussions Under Eminent
Domain)

Sec. 10, Article III

No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be
passed.
The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and
all rights are subject to the police power of the State
and not only may regulations which affect them be
established by the State, but all such regulations must be
 Sec. 11, Article III (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436)
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and x x x The prosecution may not use statements, whether
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
by reason of poverty. interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
the use ofprocedural safeguards effective to secure the
Inspired by t social justice policy and covered by the equal privilege against self-incriminations. By custodial
protection clause, this rule has been implemented by several interrogation, it means questioning initiated by law
provisions of the Rules of Court in favor of the pauper enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
litigant. The IBP provides deserving indigents with free custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
legal aid, including representation in court, and similar any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be
services available from the DOJ to litigants who cannot employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to
afford retained counsel, like the accused in a criminal case informed accused-persons of their right of silence and to
who can ask for the assistance of counsel de officio. There assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following
are also private legal assistance organizations now measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person
functioning for the benefit of penurious clients who must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that
otherwise might be unable to resort to the courts of any statement he does make may be used as evidence
justice because only of their misfortune of being poor. against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
This provision makes them the equal of the rich before the attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may
law. waive effectuations of these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he
Sec. 12, Article III indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and
remain silent and to have a competent and independent indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with fact that he may have answered some questions or
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive
the presence of counsel. him of the right to refrain from answering any further
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against thereafter consents to be questioned.
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited. ¤Applies only from the moment the investigating officer
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence admissions, confessions or any information from the
against him. accused.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and People vs. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002, it was
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and held that this guarantee does not apply to spontaneous
their families. statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the
Rights of an Accused under Custodial Investigation suspect orally admitted having committed the offense.
¤Exist only in custodial interrogation Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a
¤Available when the investigation is no longer a general suspect before he was placed under custodial investigation.
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a In this case, the narration before the Barangay Captain
particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police prior to custodial investigation was admissible in
custody, the police carry out a process of interrogation that evidence, but not the admission questioning by the judge
tend to elicit incriminating statements. was done after the suspect had been arrested and such
questioning already constituted custodial investigation.
Custodial Investigation— Rights guaranteed:
Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a 1. Right to remain silent;
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of 2. Right to have a competent and independent counsel
his freedom of action in any significant way. preferably of his own choice
It shall include the practice of issuing “invitation” to a at all stages of the investigation;
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he Independent and competent counsel—willing to safeguard
is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the constitutional rights of
the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of the the accused
law. (RA 7438) 3. Right to be informed of such rights;
Rationale:
People vs. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001, the a. to make him aware of it;
accused should have been entitled to Miranda rights, b. to overcome the inherent pressure o the interrogating
because even assuming that he was not yet under atmosphere; and
interrogation at the time he was brought to the police c. to show the individual that his interrogators are
station, his confession was elicited by a police officer who prepared to recognize his
promised to help him if he told the truth. Furthermore, when privilege should he choose to invoke it.
he allegedly pointed out the body of the victim, the 4. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot
atmosphere was highly intimidating and not conducive to a afford one;
spontaneous response as the whole police force and nearly ¤These rights cannot be waives except in writing and in the
100 townspeople escorted him there. Not having the benefit presence of counsel; it is not
of counsel and not having been informed of his rights, the required in a police-line up as the latter is not part of a
confession is inadmissible. custodial inquest.
5. No torture, force, etc. which vitiate free will shall be used;
Miranda rights— 6. Secret detention places are prohibited; and
7. Confession/admissions obtained in violation of rights
are inadmissible in evidence. Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 24,
2002, the counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent
Ways of identifying the suspects During Custodial during preliminary investigation is admissible because
Investigation: preliminary investigation is not part of custodial
1. Show-ups (out-of-court identification)—where the investigation. The interrogation by the police, if any would
suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for already have been ended at the time of the filing of the
identification; criminal case in court or in the public prosecutor’s office.
People vs. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002,
the accused, having become the focus of attention by the Spontaneous statements—those elicited through
police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the questioning by law enforcement officers, but given in an
possible perpetrator of the crime, it was held that when the ordinary manner where the appellant verbally admits to
out-of-court identification was conducted by the police, having committed the offense, are admissible. (People vs.
the accused was already under custodial investigation. Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004)
2. Mug shots—where photographs are shown to the
witness to identify the suspect; and WAIVER
3. Police Line ups—where a witness identifies the It must be in writing and made in the presence of the
suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. counsel. The burden of proving that there was a valid
It is not considered a part of any custodial inquest because waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption of
it is conducted before that stage of investigation is official duty has been regularly performed cannot
reached (People vs. Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, prevail over the presumption of innocence.
1999). The process has not yet shifted from the investigatory What may be waived?
to the accusatory stage, and it is usually the witness or the 1. Right to remain silent
complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement 2. Right to counsel
in the course of the line-up (People vs. Amestuzo, July 12, Exclusionary Rule—
2001). Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sections 12
and 17 of Article III shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Factors in Resolving the Admissibility of and Relying on Out- Fruit of the poisonous tree—once the primary source is
of-Court Identification of Suspects: TOTALITY OF shown to have been lawfully obtained, any secondary or
CIRCUMSTANCES TEST derivative evidence derived from it is inadmissible.
1. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time Evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
of the crime; used to gain other evidence because the originally
2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time; obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; obtained.
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification; Sec. 13, Article III
5. The length of time between the crime and the All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
identification; and by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released or recognizance as may be provided by law.
Two (2) kinds of Involuntary or Coerced Confessions: The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
1. Those which are the product of 3rd degree methods privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
such as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which Excessive bail shall not be required.
are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12; and
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda Right to Bail
warnings. Bail—the security given for the release of a person in custody
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned
Extrajudicial Confessions—are presumed voluntary, and, upon his appearance before any court as may be required.
in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the The right to bail may be invoked by any person once
declarant’s consent in executing the same has been detention commences even if no formal charges have yet to
vitiated, such confession will be sustained. be filed;
To be admissible, it must be: It can availed of by a person who is in custody of law or
1. Voluntary; otherwise deprived of his liberty;
2. Made with the assistance of competent and independent Suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus
counsel; does not suspend the right to bail;
3. Express; and Even when the accused has previously jumped bail, still he
4. In writing. cannot be denied bail before conviction if it is a matter of
right. The remedy is to increase the amount of bail;
Investigations not considered custodial interrogation Right to bail has not been recognized and is not available to
1. Those conducted by an audit examiner the military.
2. Those conducted by the Court Administrator Standards for fixing amount of bail:
3. Those conducted by the employer 1. Financial ability of the accused;
¤For the reason that these people are not law enforcement 2. Nature and circumstances of the offense;
officers 3. Penalty for the offense charged;
However, in the case of People vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, 4. Character and reputation of the accused;
June 21, 2001, after an audit, the accused was summoned 5. Age and health of the accused;
to appear before the Assistant Accountant of 6. Weight of evidence against the accused;
MetroBank and, in the course of the interview, accused 7. Probability of appearance at trial;
admitted having issued the subject cashier’s checks without 8. Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
any legitimate transaction, the written confession was held 9. He was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
admissible in evidence inasmuch as the interview did not 10.Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
constitute custodial investigation.
Bail as a matter of right— may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to
right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance appear is unjustifiable.
as prescribed by law:
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and Rights of the Accused:
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not 1. Criminal due process:
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life a. Opportunity to be heard in court of competent
imprisonment. jurisdiction;
3. The evidence of guilt is not strong. b. The accused must proceed against under orderly processes
of law;
c. He must be given notice and opportunity to be heard; and
Bail when discretionary— d. The judgment rendered was within the authority of a
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable constitutional law.
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, 2. Presumption of innocence—
on application, may admit the accused to bail. Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused
2. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to must be taken into account. The proof against him must
continue on provisional liberty after the same bail bond not be permitted to sway judgment and the presumption
during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the that official duty was regularly performed cannot, by itself,
bondsman. prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
3. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 3. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
6 years but not more than 20 years, the accused shall be 4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, accusation against him
upon showing by the following or other similar
circumstances: Objectives:
a. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual a. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the charge against him as will enable him to make the defense;
circumstance of reiteracion; b. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
b. That the accused is found to have previously escaped protection against a further prosecution for the same cause;
from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated c. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may
the conditions of his bail without valid justification; decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a
c. That the accused committed the offense while on conviction, if one should be had.
probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicates Description, not designation, of the offense is controlling.
the probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that during the pendency of Void-for-Vagueness Rule—the accused is denied the right to
the appeal, the accused may commit another crime. be informed of the charge against him, and to due
process as well, where the statute itself is couched in
Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion— such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or
the prosecutor, or at least he must be asked for his omissions are punished and, hence, shall be avoided.
recommendation, because in fixing the amount of bail, the
judge is required to take into account a number of factors. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November
When bail shall be denied— 19, 2001, every legislative measure is presumed
No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal constitutional. Petitioner failed to discharge the
prosecution, shall be admitted to bail if: burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.
a. Charged with capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; and 5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial—
b. Evidence of guilt is strong. Impartial—the judge must not be bias and not motivated by
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by malice or bad faith
reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on the motion for bail 6. Right to meet witness face to face—
must be conducted by the judge to determine whether or Witnesses not submitted for cross-examination are not
not the evidence of guilt is strong. admissible as evidence. However, right to cross-examination
Without a hearing, the judge could not possibly asses the may be waived.
weight of the evidence against the accused before granting 7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of
the latter’s application for bail. witnesses and production of evidence
(See the cases of Government of USA vs. Hon. Purganan and 8. Trial in Absentia
Government of Hongkong vs. Judge Olalia) After arraignment;
Due notice; and
Sec. 14, Article III Absence is unjustified.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense Plea of guilt to a capital offense—
without due process of law. 1. There must be searching inquiry into the voluntariness of
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall thereof;
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be 2. Presentation of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against and the precise degree of his culpability;
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet 3. The accused must be asked if he desire to present
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of desires.
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
Sec. 15, Article III
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be prosecution for an offense to which such compelled
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the testimony relates; and
public safety requires. (Relate this to Section 18, Article VII) 2. Use Immunity Statute—prohibits the use of a witness’
compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in
Writ of habeas corpus— connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
A writ issued by the court directed to a person
detaining another, commanding him to produce the body Sec. 18, Article III
of the prisoner at designated time and place, with the day (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
and cause of his capture and detention, to do, to submit political beliefs and aspirations.
to, and to receive whatever court or judge awarding writ (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
shall consider in his behalf. except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
It lies only where the restraint of a person’s liberty shall have been duly convicted.
has been judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful.
A petition for habeas corpus will be given due course Right against Involuntary Servitude
only if it shows that petitioner is being detained or It is a condition where one is compelled by force,
restrained of his liberty unlawfully. A restrictive custody coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor
and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police for another, whether he is paid or not.
officers under investigation by their superiors is not a
form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. (SP02 General Rule: No involuntary servitude shall exist.
Manalo vs. PNP Chief Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, Exceptions:
October 15, 2007) 1. As punishment for a crime whereof one has been duly
convicted;
Sec. 16, Article III 2. Service in defense of the State;
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of 3. Naval enlistment;
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or 4. Posse commitatus;
administrative bodies. 5. Return to work order in industries affected with public
interest; and
Enriquez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174902- 6. Patria potestas.
06, February 15, 2008, this right, like the right to a speedy
trial, is deemed violated when the proceedings are Sec. 19, Article III
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
The concept of speedy disposition of cases is relative degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
or flexible. A simple mathematical computation of the shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
time involved is insufficient. The facts and reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
circumstances peculiar to each case must be examined. In provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall
ascertaining whether the right to a speedy disposition of be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
cases has been violated, the following factors must be (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
considered: degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
1. The length of delay; or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
2. The reasons for the delay; under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused; and Prohibited Punishments
4. The prejudice caused by the delay. (Tilendo vs. Mere severity does not constitute cruel or unusual
Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165975, punishment. To violate constitutional guarantee,
September 13, 2007) penalty must be flagrant and plainly oppressive,
disproportionate to nature of offense as to shock senses
Sec. 17, Article III of community.
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. Sec. 20, Article III
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
Right against self-incrimination— of a poll tax.
Availability:
¤Not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other Coverage:
government proceedings, including civil actions and 1. Debt—any civil obligation arising from contract
administrative or legislative investigations 2. Poll tax—a specific sum levied upon any person
¤May be claimed not only by accused but by any belonging to a certain class
witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed. without regard to property or occupation.
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from
Scope: law hence, its non-payment
It applies only against testimonial compulsion and may be validly punished with imprisonment.
production of documents, papers and chattels in court
except when books of account are to be examined in Sec. 21, Article III
exercise of power of taxation and police power. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
Two (2) types of Immunity Statutes: for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and
1. Transactional Immunity Statute—testimony of any an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
person or whose possession of documents or other constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth
in any investigation conducted is immune from criminal Right against Double Jeopardy
Requisites:
1. A valid complaint or information; People vs. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, et al., G.R. No. 130106,
2. Filed before competent court; July 15, 2006, after trial on the merits, an acquittal is
3. To which defendant has pleaded; and immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or of double jeopardy. The only exception where double
the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is finding of
express consent. mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.

Two (2) types: Sec. 22, Article III

1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment No ex-post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
for the same offense; Right against Ex-Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder
2. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for Ex-Post Facto Law—
the same act. To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, The equivalent of the impairment clause in criminal
the following must be proven: matters is the prohibition against the passage of the ex
1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the post facto law. This is because the ex post facto law, like
second; the law impairing the obligation of the contracts,
2. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or operates retroactively to affect antecedent acts. A law
the second offense includes or is necessarily included can never be considered ex post facto as long as it
in the offense charged in the first information, or is an operates prospectively since its structures would cover
attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. only offenses committed after and not before its
Legal Jeopardy Attaches Only: enactment. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that
1. Upon a valid indictment; would make a previous act criminal although it was not so
2. Before a competent court; at the time it was committed.
3. After arraignment;
4. When a valid plea has been entered and Kinds:
5. The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated 1. Law criminalizing act done before its passage;
without the express consent of the accused. ¤Example: A law passed in 1990 raising the age of
General Rule: Dismissal of action, when made at the seduction from 18 to 25 years, effective 1980
instance of the accused, does not put the accused in first 2. Law aggravating penalty for crime committed before
jeopardy. passage;
Exceptions: ¤Example: A law passed in 2000 designating the crime
1. When ground for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence; of homicide through reckless imprudence as murder,
2. When the proceedings have been unreasonably effective 1990
prolonged as to violate the right of the accused of a 3. Law that changes punishment, and inflicts greater or
speedy trial. more severe punishment than the law annexed to the
Crimes covered: crime when committed;
1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or frustration ¤Example: A law passed in 2000 increasing the penalty for
thereof or for any offense which necessarily includes or libel from prision correccional to prision mayor, effective
is necessarily included in the offense charged in original 1990
complaint or information; and 4. Law altering legal rules of evidence and receives less or
2. When an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, different testimony than law required at the time of
conviction or acquittal under either shall bar another commission, in order to convict accused;
prosecution for the same act. ¤Example: A law passed in 2000 requiring for conviction
merely preponderance of evidence instead of proof
Doctrine of Supervening Event—prosecution for beyond reasonable doubt, effective 1990
another offense if subsequent development changes the 5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
character of the first indictment under which he may only, in effect imposes a penalty of deprivation of right
have already been charged or convicted. for something which when done was lawful; and
Conviction of accused shall not bar another prosecution ¤Example: A law passed in 2000 depriving professionals of
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense the right to practice for failure or refusal to vote,
originally charged when: effective 1990.
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts 6. Law depriving accused of some lawful protection to
arising from the same act or omission; which he had been entitled, such a protection of a
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of
discovered only after filing of former complaint or amnesty.
information; and ¤Example: A law passed in 2000 lengthening the
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the period for prescription of blackmail from 5 to 10 years,
consent of prosecutor or offended party. effective 1990.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, Characteristics:
for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the 1. It refers to criminal matters;
accused must have been dismissed or otherwise 2. It is retroactive in application; and
terminated without his express consent by a court of 3. It works to the prejudice of the accused.
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information In the case of US vs. Gomez Colonel, 12 Phil 279, an
sufficient in form and substance and the accused information for adultery filed by the prosecutor was
pleaded to the said charge. dismissed by the SC on the ground that at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense, prosecution could be 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
commenced only on complaint of the offended spouse. It mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
was held that the amendatory law permitting the the age of majority;
prosecutor to initiate the charge was ex post facto. 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Bill of Attainder— Section 2, Article IV— Natural-born citizens are those
• It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
• It is a legislative declaration of guilt having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
• Essential: Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
1. Specification of certain individuals or a group of citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
individuals; hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
2. The imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise;
3. Lack of judicial trial. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in
It substitute legislative fiat for a judicial Australia, to spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen
determination of guilt. Thus, it is only when a statute and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa
applies either to named individuals or to easily Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and,
ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her province?
inflict punishment on them without judicial trial that it
becomes a bill of attainder. Historically, she was born a year before the 1935
Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served
Article IV as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic
CITIZENSHIP acts by which the US governed the country. These were
the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine
Citizenship- is membership in a political community which Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the
is personal and more or less permanent in character. Jones Law.
Nationality- is membership in any class or form of These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of
political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if the Philippine Islands. Xxx Under both organic acts, all
member of a democratic community] or subjects [if inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish
members of a monarchial community]. It does not subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including
necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private
political and civil rights. respondent’s father, Telesforo, was born on January 5,
Usual modes of acquiring citizenship: 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a
a. By Birth certified true copy of an entry in the registry of Births.
i. Jus sanguinis-by blood Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones
ii. Jus soli-by birth Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine
b. By Naturalization citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the law in
c. By Marriage force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is
The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the likewise a citizen of the Philippines.
principle of JUS SANGUINIS. Thereunder, a child follows The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has
the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the
the place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle
JUS SOLI which determines the nationality or citizenship confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was
on the basis of place of birth. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987
SCRA 543) Constitutions.
Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco
Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino
A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not
i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If
Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most,
islands who did not declare their intention of preserving private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship
Spanish nationality between said date and October 11, resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs.
1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)
Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and
their children born after April 11, 1899. (en masse Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434,
Filipinization) March 3, 2004 (on the controversy surrounding the
citizenship of FPJ) –The Court took note of the fact that
ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the
courts are recognized as such today, not because of the age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in
application of the jus soli principle, but principally because 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish rule,
of the doctrine of res judicata. and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence
upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other
B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the evidence, could have well been his place of residence
Jus Sanguinis doctrine. before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited
Section 1, Article IV— The following are citizens of the from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill
Philippines: of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan
the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987) F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship
Philippines; (jus sanguinis) to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens
regardless of whether such children are legitimate or [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil.
illegitimate. 541].
The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “Citizens of the Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In
Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13,
unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the 2004, it was held that the respondent, who was
law, to have renounced it” [Sec.4, Art. IV]. concededly an illegitimate child considering that her
Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married,
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, is not required to comply with said constitutional and
Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999— statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of
Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon
April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was birth. Record shows that respondent elected Filipino
already 35 years old when he complied with the citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She
requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18
after he had reached the age of majority. By any years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the
reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond participation in election exercises constitute a positive act
the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. of electing Philippine citizenship.
All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest
in him citizenship as the law gives him the requirement for Naturalized citizens are those who have become
election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under
with. (He was not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath) CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship Naturalization Law, which repealed the former
was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of the Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by RA 530.
Department of State of the US government to the effect To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he
that the election should be made within a “reasonable possesses all the qualifications and none of the
time” after attaining the age of majority. The phrase disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino
“reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship
election should be made within three (3) years from becomes executor only after 2 years from its
reaching the age of majority except when there is promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the
justifiable reason to delay. intervening period, the applicant:
The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he 1. Has not left the Philippines;
reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention to 2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;
elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the 3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation
contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon of government promulgated rules; or
reaching the age of majority”. ®(If his parents were not 4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of
married, he will follow the citizenship of his mother and he the nation or contrary to any government announced
need not elect Philippine citizenship. ) policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No.
142840, may 7, 2001)
Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign
parents who, before the adoption of the 1935 Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant:
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the 1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of
Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In the hearing of petition;
Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the right 2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous
acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible. period of not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5
Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens years if:
of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; a. he honorably held office in Government;
to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 b. He established a new industry or introduced a useful
(date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution). invention in the Philippines;
c. He is married to a Filipino woman;
If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a
person must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the public or private school not established for the
age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except exclusive instruction of persons of a particular
when there is justifiable reason to delay] nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education
or industry for a period of not less than 2 year; or
Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship: e. He was born in the Philippines
1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and 3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles
sworn to by the party concerned before any official underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have
authorized to administer oaths. conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry manner during the entire period of his residence in the
accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines in his relation with the constituted
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines government as well as with the community in which he is
[Sec. 1, CA 625]. living;
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the not less than P5,000.00, Philippine currency, or must
Philippines—Prospective application, consistent with the have some known lucrative trade, profession or
1973 Constitution. lawful occupation;
The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate 5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish
right; during his minority, the child is an alien and any of the principal languages; and
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the
age, in any of the public schools or private schools nation or contrary to any government-announced
recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the policies.
Philippines where Philippine history, government and 8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of
civic are taught or prescribed as part of the school naturalization.
curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in
the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his Modes of Naturalization:
petition for naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III 1. DIRECT - through:
vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may 7, 2001) d. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The
Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000—grants
Disqualifications: Philippine citizenship to aliens bornand residing in the
1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated Philippines
with any association or group of persons who uphold e. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on
and teach doctrines opposing all organized Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made an
governments; outstanding contribution to the country
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or f. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation
propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination or subjugation
for the success of predominance of their ideas; g. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as
3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy; nationals of the State where they are born
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; 2. DERIVATIVE -Citizenship conferred on:
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable a. Wife of naturalized husband;
contagious disease; b. Minor children of naturalized person;
6. Those who, during the period of their residence in c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
the Philippines have not mingled socially with the
Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007—
learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a
Filipinos; foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing
7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the him or her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and
Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; existing laws, there are 3 ways by which an alien may
8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose become a citizen by naturalization:
laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139;
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as
amended—covers all aliens regardless of class; and
Procedure: c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted
1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
filing of the Petition with the OSG It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own
good moral character but also the good moral character
Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention : of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons.
a. Those born in the Philippines and received their A naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary
primary and secondary education in public or private proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not
schools recognized by the Government and not limited to constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may
any race or nationality; b. Those resided in the Philippines be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any
enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized material fact.
by the government and not limited to any race or RA 9139—not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only
nationality; native born aliens who have been residing here in the
c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other
have declared their intention to become citizens of the country and all along thought that they were Filipinos;
Philippines and die before they are actually naturalized. who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the
2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2 Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of
credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who the Filipinos.
personally know the petitioner, as character witness; Naturalization Repatriation
3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper
of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive -mode for both acquisition -mode for reacquisition for
weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs. and those who lost
Republic, 205 SCRA 400) reacquisition of citizenship their citizenship
4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire -governed by CA 473 (for -governed by various statutes
proceedings. acquisition) and -consists of taking of an oath of
5. Hearing of the Petition. CA 63 (for reacquisition) allegiance
6. Promulgation of the decision. -consists a lengthy process to the RP and registering said
7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation oath in the
period, applicant has: LCR of the place where the
a. Not left the Philippines; person
b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or concerned resides or last
profession; resided
c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules;
and
Effects of Naturalization:
1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign
naturalized; (She need not go through the naturalization citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as
process; if she doesn’t suffer from any disqualification, no dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares
need to prove the qualifications) that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and
2. Minor children born in considered citizens of the defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and
Philippines; allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath
3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were operates as an effective renunciation of foreign
residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal
shall be considered Filipino citizens. interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really
4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before prohibited to run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance
parent’s naturalization shall be considered Filipino is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under
citizens only during minority, unless they begin to Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code refers to
reside permanently in the Philippines; dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987
5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May
naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizen, 26, 1999]
provided that he registers as such before any
Philippine consulate within one year after attaining Section 5, Article IV—Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance. to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Denaturalization ¤This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an
Grounds: implementing law.
1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or Section 40 (d), LGC—Disqualifications.—The following
illegally; persons are disqualified from running from any elective
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to local election: x x x
some foreign country and establishes residence there; (d) Those with dual citizenship. x x x.
Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence: ¤The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the Supreme
a. Native country- 1-year stay Court ruled that it refers to prohibition on dual
b. Foreign country- 2-year stay allegiance.
3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;
4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be
the parents either by neglecting to support them or by compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has
transferring them to another school; already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the
5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy; second State whose nationality he has acquired.

In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although misconduct Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance
was committed after the 2year probationary period,
conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ¤arises as a result of ¤arises as a result of
ground for denaturalization. the concurrent the concurrent
Effects of Denaturalization: application of the application of the
1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the different laws of 2 or different laws of 2 or
proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and more states, a person is more states, a person is
children of their derivative naturalization; simultaneously simultaneously
2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, considered as a national considered as a national
his wife and children shall retain their Philippine of said states of said states
citizenship. ¤involuntary ¤involuntary

Policy against Dual Allegiance : “Dual allegiance of

citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11,
dealt with by law” [Sec. 5, Art. IV]. 2007, what RA 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to
The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Section natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
40(d) LGC must be understood as referring to “dual citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
allegiance”. Consequently, persons with mere dual foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the
those with dual allegiance, who must be subject to strict Republic, the person implicitly renounces its foreign
process with respect to the termination of their status, citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear
for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the
upon filing of their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), they burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is
elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
persons with dual citizenship considering that their What happens to the other citizenship was not made a
condition is the unavoidable consequence of concern of RA 9225.
conflicting laws of different states.
By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess
the same time, forswear allegiance to the other country dual citizenship:
of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate 1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an 2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and
individual has not effectively renounced his foreign alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such
citizenship. children are citizens of that country;
That is of no moment.
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s Express renunciation means a renunciation made
country the former are considered citizens, unless by known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or
their act or omission they are deemed to have implication.
renounced Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano, Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of
307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999] foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation.
(Valles vs. COMELEC)
In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364,
obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial
documents as a Portuguese were construed as
Res judicata in cases involving citizenship: renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
General Rule: It does not apply to questions of citizenship. 3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining
exception to the general rule was recognized provided the the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino
following must be present: may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this
1. A person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a manner while RP is at war with any country. –an
controversy where said person is a party; application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.—by
2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative virtue of RA 9225
took active part in the resolution thereof; and 4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC. armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT:
Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior alliance with the said foreign country; and
rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may The said foreign country maintains armed forces in
somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, Philippine territory with the consent of RP
though not really binding, to make the effort easier or 5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
simpler. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 6. By having been declared by competent authority a
2000). deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of
Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship war UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty
A. Loss of citizenship: has been granted.
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. B. Reacquisition of citizenship:
COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245) However, this was modified by 1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance
RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine 2. By naturalization
Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship 3. By repatriation
Permanent— 4. By direct act of Congress
September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State Effect of repatriation:
that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of It allows the person to recover or return to, his original
another country shall be deemed to have lost their status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who
They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US
oath of allegiance Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-
Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship
RA 9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may through repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No.
reacquire Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of 142840, May 7, 2001) Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA,
allegiance G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the only persons
Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:
adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire a) Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship
their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225 by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos
shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines. including their minor children who lost their Philippine
Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and
be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
conditions:
o Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws
o For those seeking elective public office and appointive
office, meet the qualifications, make personal and
sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the RP Article V
o For those intending to practice their profession, SUFFRAGE
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit Section 1
to engage in such practice Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
2. By express renunciation of citizenship least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have
Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the
Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
citizenship because he expressly renounced allegiance to months immediately preceding the election. No
the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship. literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall
be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 2
The Congress shall provide a system for securing the
secrecy and sanctity of the ballots as well as a system
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of
other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to
vote under existing laws and such rules as the
Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the
secrecy of the ballot.
Right of Suffrage—
Right to vote in election of officers chosen by people and
in the determination of questions submitted to people.
ELECTION—is the embodiment of the popular will, the
expression of the sovereign power of the people.
It is the means by which the people choose their officials
for a definite and fixed period and to whom they entrust
for the time being the exercise of the powers of
government.
Kinds:
1. REGULAR ELECTION—refers to an election
participated in by those who possess the right of
suffrage and not disqualified by law and who are
registered voters. It is the election of officers either
nationwide or in certain subdivisions thereof, after
expiration of full term of the former members.
a. National Election —
i. for President and VP—every 6 years
ii. for Senators—every 3 years

Paras vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996,

the SK Election is not a regular election because the latter
is participated in by youth with ages ranging from 15-18,
as per RA 9164, some of whom are not qualified voters to
elect local or national elective officials.
b. Local Elections —
i. For Members of HOR—
ii. Party-List Representatives—
iii. Provincial Officials— Every 3 years from the
2

iv. City Officials— Monday of May 1992

v. Municipal Officials—
nd
c. Barangay Elections —every 3 years after July 2002 to
be held on the last
Monday of October, synchronized with the SK elections
d. ARRM Elections —
i. For Regional Governor—
ii. Regional Vice Governor— Every 3 years from March
1993
iii. Regional Assemblymen—
e. Sanggguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections -- every 3 years
after July 2002 to
be held on the last Monday of October, synchronized with
the Barangay
elections

------(ended in page 124)