Art III - Political Science Class

Law IQ for Law Students
ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

1987 Philippine Constitution
TZRT

1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
BILL OF RIGHTS
It is a charter of liberties for the individual
and a limitation upon the power of the State
A. PURPOSE
To protect the people against arbitrary and
discriminatory use of political power.
B. TWO KINDS OF RIGHTS

Article III:
embodied in
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

OF THE LAWS
1. POLITICAL RIGHTS
SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived

of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Those that are in relation to the participation of the

individual, directly or indirectly, in the establishment
or administration of government.
Ex. Freedom of Speech and assembly

2. CIVIL RIGHTS
These are non-political rights of all citizens,
especially those relating to personal liberty
A. DUE PROCESS OF LAW

It is a law that hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.1
Ex. Right against Involuntary Servitude, Right

against Unreasonable searches and seizures
1. ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS:
RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE III:
Sec. 19 Right against excessive fines and

cruel and degrading punishments
Sec. 20 Right against imprisonment for
non-payment of debt or poll tax
Sec. 21 Right against double jeopardy
Sec. 22 Right against ex post facto law
and bill of attainder
Sec. 1 Right to due process and equal

protection of the laws.
Sec. 2 Right against unreasonable
searches and seizures
Sec. 3 Right to privacy of communication
and correspondence
Sec. 4 Freedom of expression
Sec. 5 Freedom of religion
Sec. 6 Liberty of abode and right to
travel
Sec. 7 Right to information
Sec. 8 Right to form associations
Sec. 9 Just compensation
Sec. 10 Non-impairment of obligations
and contracts
Sec. 11 Free access to courts
Sec. 12 Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
Sec. 13 Right to bail
Sec. 14 Rights of the accused
Sec. 15 Privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
Sec. 16 Right to a speedy disposition of
cases
Sec. 17 Right against self-incrimination
Sec. 18 Right against involuntary
servitude
a) Substantive due process

b) Procedural due process
2. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

a) This serves as a restriction on the
governments law and rule-making
powers. It requires the intrinsic validity of
the law 2 in interfering with the rights of
the person to his life, liberty, or property.
b) It must be a guarantee against the
exercise of arbitrary power even when
the power is exercised according to
proper forms and procedure.
c) REQUIREMENTS:
(1) The interests of the public in general,
as distinguished from those of a
particular
class,
require
the
intervention of the State; and
(2) The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of
the
purpose
and
not
unduly
oppressive on individuals.
Ermita Hotel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of

Manila, 20 SCRA 849; Perez vs. People, G.R. No. 164763,
12 Feb. 2008
2 Intrinsic validity of the law requires that the law itself
must be constitutional and legally binding.
1
lawiq.weebly.com
34
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER
that a person owns, it includes the right to
procure and dispose of them.
Publication of laws is part of substantive

due process.3
3. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
7. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAIVABLE
a) This serves as a restriction on actions of

judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of
the government.
b) It concerns about the legal processes
itself that requires notice and hearing
before judgment.
c) REQUIREMENTS:
(1) Impartial court or tribunal clothed

with judicial power to hear and
determine the matters before it;
(2) Jurisdiction properly acquired over
the person of the defendant and
over property which is the subject
matter of the proceeding;
(3) Opportunity to be heard; and
To be heard does not mean verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard
also
through
pleadings.
Where
opportunity to be heard, either through
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded,
there is no denial of due process.4
8. DUE PROCESS DOES NOT ALWAYS

REQUIRE TRIAL-TYPE PROCEEDINGS
a) The essence of due process is found in
the opportunity to be heard and the
submission of evidence. To be heard
does not necessarily mean verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard
also through pleadings.7/8
b) What the law prohibits is not the absence
of previous notice but the absolute
absence thereof and the lack of
opportunity to be heard.9
B. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
(4) Judgment rendered upon lawful

hearing and based on evidence
adduced5.
4. LIFE
It refers to the right of an individual to his
body in its completeness, and extends to the
use of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable. It also includes the right to a good
life and have a dignified and decent
standard of living.
It includes the right to exist and the right

to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude.
6. PROPERTY
Taada v. Tuvera, No. L-63915, December 29, 1986

Sandoval v. HRET, G.R. No. 19006, March 9, 2010
5 Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390,
March 26, 1918
3
4
It requires that all persons or things similarly

situated should be treated alike, both as
to the rights conferred and liabilities
imposed.
1. What the Constitution requires is equality

among equals. If the classification is
reasonable, the law may operate only
on some and not all of the people
without violating the equal protection
clause.
2. The guaranty of the equal protection
clause is not violated by a legislation
based on a reasonable classification. 10
3. A law is NOT invalid simply because of
simple inequality. In the exercise of its
power to make classifications for the
purpose of enacting laws over matters
within its jurisdiction, the State is
5. LIBERTY
It means anything that can come under

the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things
The right to be heard may be waived as it

may be invoked, and validly so, as long as
the person is given the opportunity to be
heard on his behalf. It is sufficient that he
was given the opportunity to be heard.
He need not be heard.6
Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 88050,

Jan. 30, 1992
7 Zaldivar vs. SB; Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, Oct. 7, 1988
8 PLEADINGS are the written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted
to the court for appropriate judgment.
9 Samalio vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 140079, March 31, 2005
10 People v. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5, 1939
6
By: TZRT
34

recognized as enjoying a wide range of
discretion.
B. SCOPE
1. It is a popular right, hence, protects all
persons, including aliens 13 and, to a
limited extent, artificial persons 14.
2. Available to all persons, including aliens
whether accused of crime or not.
3. Artificial persons are entitled to the
guaranty but they may be required to
open their books of accounts for
examination by the State in the exercise
of the police power or the power of
taxation. Their premises may be not be
searched nor may their papers and
effects be seized except by virtue of a
valid warrant.
a) CLASSIFICATION
The grouping of persons or things similar

to each other in certain particulars and
different from all others in these same
particulars.
b) REQUIREMENTS
CLASSIFICATION:
for
VALID
(1) Such
classification
rests
upon
substantial distinctions;
(2) It is not confined to existing conditions
only;
(3) It applies equally to all members of
the same class; and
(4) It must be germane to the purposes
of the law11
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND

SEIZURE
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses,
papers,
and
effects
against
unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be
seized.
Not all searches and seizures are

prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden15.
The term "unreasonable search and
seizure" is not defined in the Constitution or
in General Orders, No. 58, and it is said to
have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable
meaning, although the term has been
defined in general language. All illegal
searches and seizures are unreasonable
while lawful ones are reasonable. What
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure in any particular case is
purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the
search, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place
or thing searched, and the character of
the articles procured16.
4. The right is personal; it may be invoked

only by the person entitled to it17. Such
right may be waived either expressly or
impliedly.
5. Waiver must be made by the person
whose right is invaded, not by one who
A. The right against unreasonable search

and seizure is a restraint upon the
government. It does not apply so as to
require exclusion of evidence which
came into the possession of the
Government through a search made by
a private citizen 12.
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, No. L-10280,

September 30, 1963
14 Bache & Co., Inc. v. Ruiz, No. L-32409, February 27, 1971
15 Valmonte v. De Villa 173 SCRA 211 Sept. 29, 1989
16 Alvarez vs. CFI, G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937
17 Stonehill v. Diokno, No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
13
11
12
People v. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5, 1939

People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
lawiq.weebly.com
34
is not duly authorized to effect such
waiver.18
6. The constitutional viability of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing for students emanates
primarily from their waiver of their right
to privacy when they seek entry to the
school, and from their voluntary
submitting their persons to the parental
authority of school authorities 19.
7. In
case
of
private
and
public
employees,
the
constitutional
soundness of the mandatory, random
and suspicionless drug testing proceeds
from the reasonableness of the drug
test policy and requirement 20.
8. However, there is no valid justification for
mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. As they are singled
out and impleaded against their will.
Thus, to impose mandatory drug testing
on the accused is a blatant attempt to
harness a medical test as a tool for
criminal prosecution21.
9. Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure
of their persons or property to the
public in a manner reflecting a LACK
OF
SUBJECTIVE
EXPECTATION
of
privacy22.
a) For a search warrant:
Such facts and circumstances which would

lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be
searched25.
b) For a warrant of arrest:
Such facts and circumstances which

would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought
to be arrested.26
2. Determination
of
probable
personally by the judge;
cause
a) For a search warrant
C. ARREST
The judge must, before issuing a search

warrant, determine whether there is
probable cause by examining the
complainant and witnesses through
searching questions and answers.
His
failure to comply with this requirement
constitutes grave abuse of discretion 27.
b) For a warrant of arrest:
It is the taking of a person into custody in order that

he may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense.
D. Requisites of Valid Warrant:

1. PROBABLE CAUSE
Such facts and circumstances
antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that
in themselves are sufficient to induce a
cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof;23
People v. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992

Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008
20 Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008
21 Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008
22 People v. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, Dec. 18, 2000
23 People v. Syjuco, No. 41957, August 28, 1937
Must refer to one specific offense 24.
What the Constitution underscores is the

exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. In satisfying
himself of the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his
witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall:
Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or
18
19
Asian Surety v. Herrera, No. L-25232, December 20, 1973

Burgos v. Chief of Staff, No. L-64261, December 26, 1984
26 Webb v. De Leon G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
27 Silva vs. Presiding Judge of RTC, Negros Oriental, G.R.
No. 81756, October 21, 1991
24
25
By: TZRT
34

If on the basis thereof he finds no probable

cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report
and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving
at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause28.
5. The warrant must describe particularly

the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
a) A description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with
the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place
intended.
b) Sufficiency of the description of the
object is closely related with the
sufficient particularity of the averments
of the offense.
c) However, it is not required that a
technical description be given32.
c) Distinction between the objectives of the

prosecutor and the judge in determining
the existence of a probable cause:
(1) Prosecutor
determines whether there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused is
guilty and should be held for trial.
(2) The Judge
determines if a warrant of arrest should be
issued to place the accused in immediate
custody so as not to frustrate the ends of
justice29
3. After personal examination under oath

or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce;
a) The personal examination must not be
merely routinary or pro forma, but must
be probing and exhaustive. The purpose
of this rule is to satisfy the examining
judge as to the existence of probable
cause.
b) Witnesses are not necessary when the
affidavit of the applicant or complainant
contains sufficient facts within his
personal and direct knowledge, it is
sufficient if the judge is satisfied that
there exists probable cause; however
when the applicant's knowledge of the
facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of
one or more witnesses having a personal
knowledge of the facts is necessary30.
(1) Test of Sufficiency of Oath: Whether it
had been drawn in such a manner
that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant be held liable for
damages caused.31
4. On the basis of their personal knowledge

of the facts they are testifying to;
Hearsay is not allowed. It must not be

based on mere information or belief.
Search Warrant
The
judge
must
personally examine in
the form of searching
questions and answers,
in writing and under
oath, the complainant
and any witnesses he
may produce on facts
personally known to
them33;
The determination of
probable
cause
depends to a large
extent
upon
the
finding/opinion of the
judge who conducted
the
required
examination of the
applicant
and
the
witnesses34.
The
description
of
property to be seized
need
not
be
technically
accurate
nor necessarily precise,
and its nature will
necessarily
vary
according to whether
the identity of the
Warrant Of Arrest
It is not necessary that
the
judge
should
personally examine the
complainant and his
witnesses35;
he
would
simply
personally review the
initial determination of
the prosecutor to see if it
is
supported
by
substantial evidence;
he merely determines
the probability, not the
certainty of the guilt of
the accused and, in so
doing, he need not
conduct a de novo
hearing36.
(De Novo) a new
General warrants are
proscribed
and
unconstitutional
(Nolasco v. Puno, No. L69803, October 8, 1985);
but, a John Doe Warrant
(where true name of the
person to be arrested is
unknown) satisfies the
People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 118315, June 20, 1996

Sec. 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court
34 Kho v. Judge Makalintal G.R. No. 94902-06, April 21,
1999
35 Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 14 November 1998
36 Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
32
33
Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988

Ho v. People, GR No. 106632 October 9, 1997
30 Alvarez vs. CFI, G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937
31 Alvarez v. Court of First Instance,64 Phil 33, 1937
28
29
lawiq.weebly.com
34
property
or
its
character is a matter of
concern; it is required
to be specific only in so
far
as
the
circumstances
will
allow37.
It is an order in writing issued in the name

of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge, and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it
before the court.
constitutional
requirement if there is
some
descriptio
personae
which
will
enable the officer to
identify the accused 38.
E. General Rule:
1. A search warrant, to be valid, must

particularly describe the place to be
searched and the things to be seized.
2. A search warrant is NOT a sweeping
authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to
confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime.
3. The search is limited in scope so as not
to be general or explanatory.
4. Nothing is left to the discretion of the
officer executing the warrant. 41
5. Although the properties may have been
seized in violation of the Constitution, it
does not follow that its owner shall be
entitled to recover it immediately. If
the said property is the subject of
litigation, like a prosecution for illegal
possession of firearms, it will remain in
custodia legis 42 until the case is
terminated.
6. If the property is prohibited by law like
illegal drugs, it shall be confiscated and
destroyed.
7. Seizure is limited to those items
particularly described in a valid search
warrant. Searching officers are without
discretion regarding what articles they
shall seize.
Evidence seized on the
occasion of such an unreasonable
search and seizure is tainted and
excluded for being the proverbial "fruit
of a poisonous tree." In the language
of the fundamental law, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding. 43
Only the judge has the power to issue a

warrant after the proper procedure has
been duly taken.
F. Exceptions:
1. The Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation may issue warrants only for
the purpose of carrying out a final
decision of deportation39. In such case,
probable cause is not necessary.
a) The constitutional guarantee set forth in
Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution
aforesaid, requiring that the issue of
probable cause be determined by a
judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings40.
b) Warrant of arrest may be issued by
administrative authorities only for the
purpose of carrying out a final finding of
a violation of law and not for the sole
purpose of investigation or prosecution.
It may be issued only after the
proceeding has taken place as when
there is already a final decision of the
administrative authorities.
G. What may be subject to search and

seizure?
1. Property subject of the offense
2. Property stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. Property used or intended to be used as
the means of committing an offense
I. PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE

SEARCHED
H. SEARCH WARRANT
Kho v. Judge Makalintal, G.R. No. 94902-06, April 21,

1999
38 Pangandaman v. Casar, No. L-71782, April 14, 1988
39 CID v. Judge De la Rosa, G.R. No. 95122-23, May 31,
1991 and Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No.
L-10280,September 30, 1963
40 Morano vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-22196, June 30, 1967
1. The executing officers prior knowledge

as to the place intended in the warrant
is relevant.
37
United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, et al., G.R. No. 163858,

June 28, 2005
42 Custodia legis legal custody
43 Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001
41
By: TZRT
34

In Yao, Sr., et al. vs. People, et al., even if

there are several structures inside the
MASAGANA compound, there was NO
NEED to particularize the areas to be
searched because the compound is
owned and used solely by MASAGANA.
What the law merely requires is that the
place
to
be
searched
can
be
distinguished in relation to the other places
in the community.
Indubitably, the
requisite of particularity as to description of
the place to be searched was complied
with in the instant case.
b) A valid arrest must precede the search;

the process cannot be reversed48.
c) A warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest may be made only within
the permissible area of search, or the
place within the immediate control of
the person being arrested 49.
44
3. Plain View Doctrine

When there are prohibited articles open
to eye and hand;50
4. When there is consent 51, subject to the ff.
requirements:
a) There is a right;
b) There must be knowledge of
existence of such right; and
c) There must be intention to waive.52
2. SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT
a) A general or scatter-shot warrant is a
search warrant issued for more than one
(1) specific offense.
b) It is void because it violates the
constitutional requirement that there
must be particularity of the things to be
seized and the places to be searched. 45
c) It is a search warrant which vaguely
describes and does not particularize the
personal properties to be seized without
a definite guideline to the searching
team as to what items might be lawfully
seized.
5. When it is an incident of inspection. 53

a) Searches of vessel and aircraft for
violation of fishery, immigration and
customs laws54;
b) Searches and seizures without warrant of
vessels and aircraft for violation of
customs laws have been traditional
exception
to
the
constitutional
requirement because the vessel can be
quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search must be
sought before the warrant could be
secured.
c) Searches of automobiles at borders or
constructive borders for violation of
immigration
and
smuggling
laws.
Customs searches however are not
available in dwelling places55;
d) Inspection of buildings and other
premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations;
e) Visual search at checkpoints56;
J. When searches WITHOUT WARRANT are

permissible:
1. In times of war and within the area of
military occupation;
2. As an incident to a lawful arrest,
provided
the
search
is
contemporaneous to arrest and within
permissible area of search 46
a) REQUISITES:
(1) The arrest must be lawful;
(2) The search and seizure must be
contemporaneous with arrest; AND
(3) The search must be within permissible
areas of search.47
the
People v. Chua Ho San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999

Espano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120431 April 1,
1998
50 Chia v. Actg. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-43810,
September 26, 1989);
51 People v. Malasugui, No. 44335, July 30, 1936
52 People vs. Cruz, Aug. 30, 1988
53 People vs. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 145176, Mar. 30, 2004
54 Roldan v. Arca, No. L-25434, July 25, 1975
55 Papa v. Mago, No. L-27360, February 28, 1968
56 Valmonte v. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29,
1989
48
49
G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007

Leon Tambasen vs. People, et al., G.R. No. 89103, July
14, 1995
46 see Sec. 13, Rule 126, Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure
47 Nolasco vs. Pao, 139 SCRA 541
44
45
lawiq.weebly.com
34
f) Conduct of aerial target zoning and
saturation drive in the exercise of
military powers of the President 57;
g) When there is a genuine reason to stopand-frisk in the light of the police
officers experience and surrounding
conditions to warrant a belief that the
person
detained
has
weapons
concealed (Malacat v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123595, December 1,
1997 citing Terry vs. Ohio); and
h) Doctrine of exigent circumstances
Under such urgency and exigency of

the moment where a search warrant should
be lawfully dispensed with58
K. KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE PRINCIPLE
1. Police officers are obliged to give
notice, show their authority and
demand that they be allowed entry.
They may only break open any outer or
inner door or window of a house to
execute the search warrant if, after
such notice and demand, such officers
are refused entry to the place of
directed search.
2. Exceptions:
a) Intrusion into the premises is permissible
when:
b) A party whose premises or is entitled to
the possession thereof refuses, upon
demand, to open it;
c) When such person in the premises
already knew of the identity of the
officers and of their authority and
persons;
d) When the officers are justified in the
honest belief that there is an imminent
peril to life or limb; and
e) When those in the premises, aware of the
presence of someone outside (because,
for example, there has been a knock at
the door), are then engaged in activity
which justifies the officers to believe that
an escape or the destruction of
evidence is being attempted.59
L. MOVING VEHICLES
Guanzon v. de Villa, G.R. No. 80508, January 30, 1990

People v. De Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994
59 People v. Huang Zhen Hua and Jogy Lee, G.R. No.
139301, September 29, 2004
57
58
1. A warrantless search of a moving

vehicle is justified on the ground that it
is not practicable to secure a warrant
because the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
in which the warrant must be sought.
2. However, the exception from securing a
search warrant when it comes to
moving vehicles does NOT give the
police authorities unbridled discretion
to conduct a warrantless search.
M. STOP AND FRISK

1. Where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude that in light of his experience
that criminal activity may be afoot and
that the person with whom he is dealing
may
be
armed
and
presently
dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable
inquiries,
and
where
nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter
serves
to
dispel
his
reasonable fear for his own or others
safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and of others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of
the outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him.
2. While probable cause is NOT required to
conduct stop-and-frisk, it nevertheless
holds that suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police
officers experience and surrounding
circumstances, to justify the belief that
the person detained has weapons
concealed.
N. Checkpoints are NOT illegal per se

1. Under exceptional circumstances, as
where the survival of organized
government is on the balance, or
where the lives and safety of the
people are in grave peril, checkpoints
may be allowed and installed by the
government.
2. Although the general rule is that
motorists and their vehicles as well as
pedestrians
passing
through
checkpoints may only be subjected to
By: TZRT
34

routine inspection, vehicles may be
stopped and extensively searched
when there is probable cause that
which justifies a reasonable belief of the
men at the checkpoints that either the
motorist is a law offender or the
contents of the vehicle are or have
been instruments of some offense.
1. In Flagrante Delicto (Caight in the Act) When person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
2. Doctrine of Hot Pursuit - When:
a) An offense has just been committed; and
b) He has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
O. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
It merely serves to supplement the prior

justification whether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit, search as an
incident to a lawful arrest or some
legitimate reason.
The objects within the sight of an officer
who has a right to be in a position to have
that view are subject to seizure and may
be presented as evidence (open to the
eye and hand).
3. When a person to be arrested is an

escapee or detention prisoner 62.
1. The plain view doctrine is usually applied

where the police officer is not searching
for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes upon
an incriminating object 60.
2. Elements:
a) A prior valid intrusion based on a valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties;
b) The
evidence
was
inadvertently
discovered by the police who have the
right to be where they are;
c) The evidence must be immediately
apparent; and
d) Plain view justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search61.
The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction,

applied with a great degree of
consistency, is that "reliable information"
alone is not sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule
113. The rule requires, in addition, that the
accused perform some overt act that
would indicate that he "has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense." The officer arresting a
person who has just committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an
offense must have personal knowledge of
that fact. The offense must also be
committed in his presence or within his
view63.
(1) Membership in organizations like NPA
is a continuing offense, thus, a person
can be arrested anytime.64
(2) When the right is waived by the
person arrested, provided he knew of
such right and knowingly decided not
to invoke it.
(3) An application for or admission to
bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest,
provided that he raises them before
entering his plea.65
P. WARRANT OF ARREST
It is an order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge, and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to arrest the person
designated therein and bring him before the
court.
R. WAIVER
OF
RIGHT
AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
When one voluntarily submits to a search

or consents to have it made on the person
Q. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS, when valid:

Sec. 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
People v. Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong. G.R. NO.
144037, September 26, 2003
64 Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 79731, July 9, 1990
65 Sec. 26, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
62
63
60
67
People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177, January 27, 1993

People v. Bolasa, GR No. 125754, December 22, 1999
lawiq.weebly.com
10
34
or premises, he is precluded from later

complaining thereof.
The right to be secured may, like every
right, be waived and such waiver may be
made either expressly or impliedly.
compulsion for each one to share what

one knows with the other 66.
D. ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT (R.A. 4200)

1. This Act prohibits any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word
to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept or record
the same, or to communicate the
content thereof to any other person.
2. It is illegal for any person not authorized
by all parties to any communication, to
secretly record such communication by
means of tape recorder.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND

CORRESPONDENCE
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of
communication
and
correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law.
a) The law does not make any distinction,

and as such, RA 4200 may be violated
even by a party to the communication.67
(2) Any evidence obtained in

violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
3. A telephone extension line is not among

the devices covered by RA 4200 68.
4. The law prohibits the overhearing,
intercepting, or recording of private
communications but not those which
are public in character 69.
5. The right to privacy of those detained is
subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, stating
in part that any security officer with
custodial responsibility over a detainee
may
undertake
such
measures
reasonable measures to secure his
safety and prevent his escape. By the
very fact of their detention. Pre-trial
detainees and convicted prisoners
have a diminished expectation of
privacy rights. 70
A. Section 3 means the right to be alone

and to be left alone in his personal
dealings.
B. Limitations:
1. By lawful order of the court;
2. Public safety or public order requires
otherwise, as may be provided by law
(Sec. 3, Art. III).
C. The law insures absolute freedom of

communication between the spouses by
making it privileged.
1. Neither husband nor wife may testify for

or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse while
the marriage subsists.
2. Neither may one be examined without
the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence
by one from the other during the
marriage, save for specified exceptions.
3. But
one
thing
is
freedom
of
communication; quite another is a
The authorities may, upon a written order

of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept
and record, with the use of any mode,
form, kind or type of electronic or other
surveillance equipment or intercepting
and tracking devices, or with the use of
any other suitable ways and means for
that
purpose,
any
communication,
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383 February

20, 1996
67 Ramirez v. Ca, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
68 Gaanan v. IAC, No. L-69809, October 16, 1986
69 Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August
26, 1999
70 Trillanes III v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, Aug. 25, 2005
66
By: TZRT
11
34

right of the people peaceably to
assemble
and
petition
the
government
for
redress
of
grievances.
message, conversation, discussion, or

spoken or written words between
members of terrorist group as defined in
the Human Security Act of 2007. Provided,
That
surveillance,
interception
and
recording of communications between
lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists
and
their
sources
and
confidential business correspondence shall
not be authorized 71.
E. FRUIT FROM THE POISONOUS

DOCTRINE [Sec. 3, (2)]
TREE
This means that illegally obtained

documents, articles, or effects are
inadmissible as evidence in court.
A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. Speech, expression and press include
every form of expression, whether oral,
written, tape or disc recorded. It also
includes movies as well as symbolic
speech such as the wearing of an arm
band as a symbol of protest, as well as
peaceful picketing.
2. Sovereignty would be negated if they
were denied the opportunity to
participate in the shaping of public
affairs through the arbitrary imposition
upon them of the ban of silence.
3. The Constitutional right guaranteeing
the freedom of expression is available
only against government intrusion. This is
apparent in the provision since it says
no law shall be passed abridging the
freedom.
1. EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2,

Art. III, shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of
Poisonous Tree Doctrine)72.
2. Evidence obtained in violation of the

search and seizure clause, whether or
not
it
is
also
self-incriminating
testimonial evidence, is inadmissible.
3. The illegally seized object must be
returned if it is not a prohibited object 73;
but
if
contraband,
it
can
be
confiscated74
F. What are the tests to determine

reasonableness of person's expectation
of privacy?
B. Scope
1. The Constitution guarantees the liberty
to utter what is in his mind and also
guarantees him the liberty not to utter
what is not in his mind.
2. The Freedom also includes the right to
an audience, in the sense that the state
cannot prohibit the people from
hearing what a person has to say,
whatever be the quality of his thoughts.
1. Whether by his conduct, the individual

has exhibited an expectation of privacy
2. Whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable 75.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Section 4. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the
Sec. 7, Human Security Act of 2007

Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
73 Bagalihog v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 92270, June 27, 1991
74 Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-59495-97, June 26, 1987
75 Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998
All the rights mentioned under this section,

while not identical, are inseparable. In
every case, therefore there is a limitation
placed on the exercise of this right, the
judiciary is called upon to examine the
effects of the challenged governmental
actuation76.
C. ELEMENTS OR ASPECTS OF FREEDOM OF

EXPRESSION:
1. Freedom
restraint
from
censorship
or
prior
71
72
76
Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983
lawiq.weebly.com
12
34
Means freedom from official
governmental restrictions on the press or
other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination
bring about the substantive evil that the

State has a right to prevent79;
a) Clear causal connection with the
danger of the substantive evil arising
from the utterance questioned; and
b) Present time element, identified with
imminent and immediate danger; the
danger must not only be probable, but
very likely inevitable80.
a) Live TV coverage may be prohibited

since the right of the accused must
prevail over the right of the public to
information and freedom of the press77
b) The doctrine of freedom of speech was
formulated primarily for the protection of
the core speech, speech which
communicates
political,
social
or
religious ideas.
c) It does not apply to commercial speech
or the communication which no more
than
proposes
a
commercial
transaction.
2. Dangerous tendency rule

Words uttered create a dangerous
tendency of an evil which the State has a
right to prevent81.
(1) For commercial speech to enjoy

protection, it must not be false or
misleading and should not propose
an illegal transaction78
(2) However, even truthful and lawful
commercial
speech
may
be
regulated if:
(a) Government has substantial
interest to protect;
(b) The
regulation
directly
advances that interest; and
(c) It is not more extensive than is
necessary
to
protect
that
interest (Central Hudson Gas
and Electric Corp v. Publifc
Service Commission of NY, No.
79-565, June 20, 1980)
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and

probable effect of the utterance be to
bring about the substantive evil which the
legislative body seeks to prevent.
3. Balancing of interest rule

When a particular conduct is regulated
in the interest of public order, and the
regulation results in an indirect, conditional
and partial abridgment of speech, the duty
of the court is to determine which of the two
conflicting interests demands the greater
protection under the particular
circumstances presented82.
When speech and non-speech
elements are combined in the same course
of conduct, a sufficiently important
governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental
limitations on free speech.
D. Freedom from subsequent punishment

1. A limitation on the power of the State to
impose a punishment after publication
or dissemination.
(1) A
governmental
regulation
is
sufficiently justified if:
(a) it is within the constitutional
power of the Government,
(b) furthers
an
important
or
substantial
governmental
interest
unrelated
to
the
suppression of free expression,
and
E. Tests for Valid Government Interference

to Freedom of Expression:
1. Clear and present danger rule
When words are used in such
circumstance and of such nature as to
create a clear and present danger that will
Schenck v. U.S., No. 437, 438, March 3, 1919

Gonzales v. Comelec, No. L-27833, April 18, 1969
81 Cabansag v. Fernandez, No. L-8974, October 18, 1957
82 American Communications Association v. Douds, No.
10, May 8, 1950
79
A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC

78 Friedman v. Rogers, G.R. No. 77-1163, February 21, 1979
and Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 72-419, June 21, 1973
77
80
By: TZRT
13
34

(c) if the incidental restriction on
alleged freedom is no greater
than what is essential to that
interest.
F. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO SPEECH:
teachers committed acts prejudicial to

the best interests of the service84.
H. EXTENT OF AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO

REGULATE PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
1. Primacy of human rights
1. Clear and present danger that the

Congress has the right to prevent;
2. Prohibition regarding certain forms of
propaganda to prevent distortion and
prostitution of electoral process;
3. Demonstrations within a radius of 200
meters from the boundary of any hall of
justice to ensure the people to an
impartial and orderly administration of
justice.83
4. Persons organizing public meetings using
public streets must procure a special
permit from the local authorities to
conduct the said meeting, parade,
procession, etc.
Clear and Present
Danger and Dangerous
Tendency Rules
a) freedom of expression, of peaceful

assembly and of petition for redress of
grievancesover property rights has
been sustained 85
b) To justify limitations on freedom of
assembly there must be proof of
sufficient weight to satisfy the clear and
present danger test86
c) The Philippine obligation under the
Vienna Convention to protect the
premises of embassies must be honored
but it does not preclude application of
the clear and present danger rule.
d) If assembly is to be held at a public
place, permit for the use of such place,
and not for the assembly itself, may be
validly required. Power of local officials is
merely for regulation and not for
prohibition87.
Balancing of Interests
Rule
Couched in terms of
degree of evil and
proximity of evil
For legislation whose

object is not the
prevention of evil
measurable in terms of
proximity and degree
Evolved in the context

of prosecution for
seditious speech
Used for commercial

speech.
I. RULES ON ASSEMBLY AND PETITION 88

1. The applicant for a permit to hold an
assembly should inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place
where and the time when it will take
place.
2. If it is a private place, only the consent
of the owner or of the one entitled to its
legal possession is required.
3. Such application should be filed ahead
in time to enable the public official
concerned to appraise whether there
may be a valid objections to the grant
of the permit or to its grant but to
another public place
G. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

1. The right to assemble is not subject to
prior restraint and may not be
conditioned upon the prior issuance of
a permit or authorization from the
government authorities.
2. However, the right must be exercised in
such a way that it will not prejudice the
public welfare.
3. When such rights were exercised on
regular school days instead of during
the free time of the teachers, the
83
a) It is an indispensable condition to such

refusal or modification that the clear and
De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 126183 &

129221, March 25, 1999
85 Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil.
Blooming Mills Co. Inc., G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973
86 JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366
November 9, 1983
87 Primicias v. Fugoso, No. L-1800, January 27, 1948
88 J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366 November 9,
1983)
84
Administrative Matter 98-7-02 SC
lawiq.weebly.com
14
34
present danger test be the standard for
the decision reached.
1. An application for the permit to

assemble shall be filed before the
Office of the Mayor within 5 working
days before the scheduled public
assembly.
2. Upon
receipt,
the
same
shall
immediately
be
posted
at
a
conspicuous place in the city or
municipal building.
3. The mayor shall act on the application
within 2 working days from the date the
application was filed, failing which, the
permit shall be deemed granted.
4. Should for any reason the mayor or any
official acting in his behalf refuse to
accept the application for a permit,
said application shall be posted by the
applicant on the premises of the office
of the mayor and shall be deemed to
have been filed.
5. If the mayor or any official acting in his
behalf denies the application or
modifies the terms thereof in his permit,
the applicant may contest the decision
in an appropriate court of law.
4. The decision of the public authority,

favorable
or
adverse,
must
be
transmitted to the applicant at the
earliest possible opportunity so they can
have recourse to the proper judicial
authority.
J. Permit for public assembly is NOT

necessary if meeting is to be held in:
1. Private places;
2. The campus of a government-owned or
operated educational institution; and
3. Freedom parks 89.
K. Tests of a lawful assembly

1. Purpose for which it is held regardless of
the auspices under which it is organized
2. Auspices test
Nature of the people composing the
assembly
L. The provisions of BP No. 880 are not an

absolute ban of public assemblies but a
restriction that simply regulates the time,
place and manner of the assemblies.
The Court referred to it as a contentneutral regulation.
a) While prudence requires that there be a

realistic appraisal not of what may
possibly occur but of what may probably
occur,
given
all
the
relevant
circumstances, still the assumption
especially so where the assembly is
scheduled for a specific public place is
that the permit must be for the assembly
being held there. The exercise of such a
right, in the language of Justice Roberts,
speaking for the American Supreme
Court, is not to be "abridged on the plea
that it may be exercised in some other
place.91
b) It is an indispensable condition to such
refusal or modification that the clear and
present danger test be the standard for
the decision reached. If he is of the view
that there is such an imminent and grave
danger of a substantive evil, the
applicants must be heard on the
matter.92
1. In view of the maximum tolerance

mandated by BP No. 880, Calibrated
Pre-emptive Response serves no valid
purpose if it means the same thing as
maximum tolerance and is illegal if it
means something else. Accordingly,
what is to be followed is and should be
that mandated by the law itself,
namely, maximum tolerance, which
specifically means the highest degree
of restraint that the military, police and
other peace keeping authorities shall
observe during a public assembly or in
the dispersal of the same. 90
M. Procedure under BP 880
N. DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF

COURTS
B.P. Blg. 880: The Public Assembly Act of 1985

Bayan, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25,
2006
89
90
91
92
IBP v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241,February 24, 2010

Ibid.
By: TZRT
15
34

Demonstrators, picketers, rallyists and all

other similar persons are enjoined from
holding any activity on the sidewalks and
streets adjacent to, in front of, or within a
radius of 200 meters from, the outer
boundary of the Supreme Court Building,
any Hall of Justice, and any other building
that houses at least 1 court sala93.
1. Academic
freedom
enjoyed
by
institutions of higher learning includes
the right to set academic standards to
determine under what circumstances
failing grades suffice for the expulsion
of students. It cannot be utilized to
discriminate against those students who
exercise their constitutional right to
peaceable assembly and free speech.
A. TWO-FOLD ASPECTS:
FREEDOM OF BELIEF
The State CANNOT
exercise control over
ones belief
Freedom is absolute
Need not be contrary
to law, public morals,
public safety, public
policy, public health, or
national interest.
FREEDOM TO ACT ON
ONES BELIEF
The State CAN regulate
the acts done because
of ones belief
NOT absolute
It must not be contrary
to law, public morals,
public safety, public
policy, public health, or
national interest.
Reason:
Cogitationis
Poenam
Nemo Emeret
(No one commits a
crime in his thoughts)
B. RELIGION
O. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. This is embraced in the freedom of
expression because it can be used as
vehicle for expression of views that has
a bearing on the public welfare.
2. The right to association also includes the
right not to join any organization94
3. The constitutional right to association
does not preclude the imposition of
relevant qualifications for membership
in any organization.
As such, any
person who does not meet the
qualifications
of
a
particular
organization cannot invoke his right to
association if membership is denied.
1. Any specific system of belief, worship,

conduct, etc. often involving a code of
ethics and philosophy; profession of
faith to an active power that binds and
elevates man to his Creator 95
a) Separation of church and state delineate
the boundaries between two institutions
to avoid encroachment by one against
another.
C. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
1. Scope:
a) State cannot set up a church;
b) Cannot pass laws which aid one or all
religions or prefer one over another;
c) Cannot influence a person to go to or
remain away from church against his will;
or
d) Force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5. No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise
and
enjoyment
of
religious
profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test
shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.
In re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC

Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, G.R. No. L25246, September 12, 1974
2. Neither the state nor the government

can set up a church, pass laws which
aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another.
Neither can openly nor secretly
participate in the affairs of the religious
organizations or groups and vice
versa96.
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937)

Everson v. Board of Education, No. 52, February 10,
1947
93
95
94
96
lawiq.weebly.com
16
34
the courts to exercise control over
church authorities in the performance
of their discretionary and official
functions. Rather, it is for the members
of religious institutions/organizations to
conform to just church regulations 98
3. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular
goals and interests but at the same
time strive to uphold religious liberty to
the greatest extent possible within
flexible
constitutional
limits.
Thus,
although the morality contemplated by
laws is secular, benevolent neutrality
could allow for accommodation of
morality based on religion, provided it
does not offend compelling state
interests.
D. Tests to determine when there is no

violation of establishment clause:
1. The statute has a secular legislative
purpose;
2. Its principal or primary effect is one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3. It does not foster an excessive
government entanglement with religion
E. Constitutionally Created Exceptions to

the Non-Establishment Clause:
a) Article VI Sec. 29;
b) Article VI Section 28 (3);
c) Article XIV Section 3 (3).
F. FREEDOM
WORSHIP
OF
RELIGIOUS
BELIEF
AND
1. Dual aspect of freedom of religious

belief and worship:
a) FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
(1) absolute as long as it is confined in
H. The COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST

involves a three-step process. The Court
explained this process in detail, by
showing the questions which must be
answered in each step, viz:
the realm of thought
1. Has the statute or government action

created a burden on the free exercise
of religion? The courts often look into
the sincerity of the religious belief, but
without inquiring into the truth of the
belief because the Free Exercise Clause
prohibits inquiring about its truth.
2. The court asks: Is there a sufficiently
compelling state interest to justify this
infringement of religious liberty? In this
step, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO
ESTABLISH THAT ITS PURPOSES ARE
LEGITIMATE FOR THE STATE AND THAT
THEY ARE COMPELLING.
3. The court asks: Has the state in
achieving its legitimate purposes used
the least intrusive means possible so
that the free exercise is not infringed
any more than necessary to achieve
the legitimate goal of the state? The
analysis requires the state to show that
the means in which it is achieving its
legitimate state objective is the LEAST
INTRUSIVE MEANS, i.e., it has chosen a
way to achieve its legitimate state end
b) FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONES BELIEF
(1) Subject to regulation where the
belief is translated into external acts

that affect the public welfare.
G. Freedom to believe carries with it the

corollary
expectation
that
the
government, while it may look into the
good faith of a person, cannot inquire
into a persons religious pretensions.
However, the moment belief flows into
action,
it
becomes
subject
to
government regulation.
1. To compel students to take part in a flag
ceremony when it is against their
religious beliefs will violate their religious
freedom` 97.
2. Expulsion/excommunication of members
of a religious institution/organization is a
matter best left to the discretion of the
officials, and the laws and canons, of
said institution/organization. It is not for
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of

Cebu, G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993
97
Dominador L. Taruc, et al. v. Bishop Porfirio dela Cruz,

G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005
98
By: TZRT
17
34

that imposes as little as possible on
religious liberties 99.
3. Under the Human Security Act, cases

where EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS NOT
STRONG, and the person charged with
the crime of terrorism as therein defined
is entitled to bail and is granted the
same, the court, upon application by
the prosecutor, shall limit the right of
travel of the accused within the
municipality or city where he resides or
where the case is pending, in the
interest of national security and public
safety.102
I. This freedom is not absolute as it is subject

to the police power of the State.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM TO TRAVEL

Section 6. The liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order
of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
D. The right to return to ones country is not

included in the right to travel. The right
to travel only includes:
1. The right to travel from the Philippines to
another country; and
2. The
right
to
travel
within
the
Philippines.103
A. Concept
1. Includes the right to choose ones
residence, to leave whenever he
pleases and to travel wherever he wills.
B. The right to travel

It is the right to move from one place to another100
C. LIMITATIONS:
1. Liberty of abode upon lawful order of
the court.
2. Right to travel
a) In the interest of national security, public
safety or public health, as may be
provided by law;
b) Any person on bail 101.
Liberty of Abode
May be impaired only
upon lawful order of
the court and within
the limits prescribed by
law
Right to Travel
May be curtailed even
by
administrative
authorities, in the interest
of
national
security,
public safety or public
health
as
may
be
provided by law
While the right to travel of citizens covers both

exit from and entry into the country, aliens
cannot claim the same right. Every sovereign
nation has the power to forbid the entrance of
foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them
only in such cases and upon such conditions as
it may see fit to prescribe.104
A court has the power to prohibit a person
admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.
This is a necessary consequence of the nature
and function of a bail bond.105
E. GENERAL RULE:
Every person has the right to establish his home
and to travel to a place anywhere he likes.
F. EXCEPTIONS:
1. National interest;
2. Public safety; OR
3. Public health.
G. Watch-list and Hold-departure Orders

1. These do not circumvent the right to
travel as it is in the exercise of the
police power of the State.
See Sec. 26 of the Human Security Act of 2007

Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October 27,
1989
104 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, No. 1393, January 18,
1892
105 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, May
30, 1986
102
103
Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006

and August 4, 2003
100 Reyes v. Razon G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009
101 Silverio vs. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991
99
lawiq.weebly.com
18
34
2. Provided, however, that these orders are
not issued arbitrarily, whimsically, and
exercised
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential information
D. Scope
1. Contemplates inclusion of negotiations
leading to the consummation of the
transaction. Otherwise, the people can
never exercise the right if no contract is
consummated,
or
if
one
is
consummated, it may be too late for
the public to expose its defects.108
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Sec. 7. The right of the people to
information on matters of public
concern
shall
be
recognized.
Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for
policy
development,
shall
be
afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by
law.
E. Exceptions: 109
1. The exercise is subject to reasonable
regulations to project the integrity of
public records
and
to minimize
disruption of government operations.
2. National Security matters. These include
state
secrets
regarding
military,
diplomatic and other national security,
and information on inter government
exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements.
3. Trade secrets and banking transactions,
pursuant to the Intellectual property
Law, and other related laws, and to the
secrecy of bank deposits act.
4. Criminal matters or classified law
enforcement matters, such As those
relating
to
the
apprehension,
prosecution and detention of criminals,
which courts may not inquire into prior
such arrest, detention and prosecution,
5. Other confidential matters.
A. Rights guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public
concern, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy
development; and
2. Corollary right of access to official
records and documents.
B. These are political rights

available to citizens only 106.
that
are
The law may exempt certain types of

information from public scrutiny, such as those
affecting national security. Availability of access
to a particular public record must be
circumscribed by the nature of the information
sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one
that involves public interest, and, (b) not being
exempted by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee.
The threshold
question is, therefore, WHETHER OR NOT THE
INFORMATION SOUGHT IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR
PUBLIC CONCERN.107
C. RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACCESS OF TO

INFORMATION
a) Parties to a government contract cannot

stipulate that the terms thereof should be
considered confidential and should be,
open for examination by the public.110
b) The right to information does not extend
to matters recognized as privileged
information under the separation of
powers, by which the Court meant
Presidential
conversations,
correspondences, and discussions in
closed-door Cabinet meetings."111
F. As to Public Documents
1. National
security
matters
and
intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002
Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998
110 AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
111 Neri v. Senate G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008
108
Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution, p. 91, 2006 ed.

107 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119,
May 29, 1987
106
109
By: TZRT
19
34

1. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records,
and
to documents
and
papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.
2. Except perhaps when it is clear that the
purpose of the examination is unlawful
or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not
believe it is the duty under the law of
registration officers concern themselves
with the motives, reasons, and objects
of the persons seeking access to the
records. The authority to regulate the
manner of examining public records
does not carry with it the power to
prohibit.112
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
Sec. 8. The right of the people,
including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall
not be abridged.
A. This general provision is fortified by
Article IX-B, Section 2(5) which affirms
that the right to self-organization shall
not
be
denied
to
government
employees.
1. While there is no question that the
Constitution recognizes the right of
government employees to organize, it is
silent as to whether such recognition
also includes the right to strike.
A
reading of the proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission shows that in
recognizing the right of the government
employees
to
organize,
the
commissioners intended to limit the right
to information of unions or association
only, without including the right to

strike.113
B. Also guarantees the right not to join an

association. 114
EMINENT DOMAIN
Sec. 9. Private property shall not be
taken for public use without just
compensation.
A. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
It is the power of the State to take private property
for public use following the payment of just
compensation to the owner of that property.
B. JUST COMPENSATION
It is the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator, and that
the gauge for computation is not the takers gain
but the owners loss. In order for the payment to be
just, it must be real, substantial, full and ample.
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF
CONTRACTS CLAUSE
Section 10. No law impairing the
obligation of contracts shall be
passed.
A. When is there impairment
obligations of contracts?
of
the
When a right is taken OR when a person is

deprived of the means of enforcing such right,
there is impairment.
B. CONTRACT
Any lawful agreement on the property or property
rights, whether real or personal, tangible or
intangible but does not cover licenses, marriage
contract, and public office.
C. IMPAIRMENT
Anything that diminishes the efficacy of a contract.
SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 85279 July 28, 1989
114 Sta. Clara Homeowners Assoc. v. Gaston, G.R. No.
141961, January 23, 2002
113
112
Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 1948
lawiq.weebly.com
20
34
1. When is there impairment
a) There is impairment when there is a
change in the terms of a legal contract
between parties, either in the time or
mode of performance, or imposes new
conditions, or dispenses with those
expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction
something different from that provided in
its terms.115
2. Degree of diminution is immaterial. As

long as the original rights of either
parties are changed to their prejudice,
there is already impairment of the
obligation of contract.
D. NO IMPAIRMENT
As long as a substantial and efficacious

remedy remains; holds true even if there is
remedy remained but it is the most difficult
to employ, the easy ones are withdrawn
E. EXCEPTIONS
1. Police power public welfare is superior
to private rights116
2. Eminent Domain
3. Taxation
In every contract, there is an implied reservation
that it is subject to the police power of the
State117.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

Section 11.
Free access to the
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.
A. The IBP provides deserving indigents with
free legal aid, including representation
in court, and similar services are
available from the Department of
Justice to litigants who cannot afford
retained counsel.
Clemons v. Nolting, No. 17959, January 24, 1922

PNB v. Remigio, G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994
117 Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L24670, December 14, 1979
115
B. There are also private legal assistance

organizations functioning for the benefit
of penurious clients who otherwise might
be unable to resort to the courts of
justice because only of their misfortune
of being poor.
C. Free access to the court does not mean
that the courts cannot impose filing
fees..
RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS/ RIGHT OF PERSONS UNDER

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Section 12. (1) Any person under
investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of
his own choice.
If the person
cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret
detention
places,
solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this or
Section
17
hereof
shall
be
inadmissible in evidence against
him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal
and civil sanctions for violations of
this section as well as compensation
to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their
families.
A. Custodial Investigation
116
By: TZRT
Questioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has
21
34

been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way118.
Time when the investigation is no longer a

general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular
suspect, the suspect has been taken into
police custody, the police carryout a
process of interrogations that lender itself
to eliciting statements119.
provisions of the constitution. He is not

only duty bound to tell the person the
rights to which the latter is entitled, he
must also explain their effects in
practical terms 121.
D. RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENT AND

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PREFERABLY OF
HIS OWN CHOICE
1. "Preferably of his own choice"
Does not mean that the choice of a
lawyer is exclusive as to preclude other
equally competent and independent
attorneys from handling the defense.122
B. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION
1. Right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to counsel;
2. Right to be reminded that if he waives
his right to remain silent, anything he
says can and will be used against him;
3. Right to remain silent;
4. Right
to
have
competent
and
independent counsel preferably of his
own choice;
5. Right to be provided with counsel, if the
person cannot afford the services of
one;
6. No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against
him;
7. Secret
detention
places,
solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited;
8. Confessions or admissions obtained in
violation of these rights are inadmissible
as evidence.
E. RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH COUNSEL, IF

THE PERSON CANNOT AFFORD THE
SERVICES OF ONE
F. CONFESSIONS OR ADMISSIONS OBTAINED

IN VIOLATION OF THESE RIGHTS ARE
INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
1. Requisites of
confession
admissible
extrajudicial
a) Voluntary
b) With assistance of a counsel
c) In writing
d) Express
C. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO

REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL
1. It carries the correlative obligation on
the part of the investigator to explain,
and
contemplates
effective
communication which results in the
subject
understanding
what
is
conveyed 120.
2. As a rule, therefore, it would not be
sufficient for a police just to repeat the
person
under
investigation
the
While the choice of the lawyer is naturally

lodged in the police investigators, the
suspect has the final choice as he may
reject the counsel chosen for him and ask
for another one.123
2. What is sought to be avoided by the rule

is the evil of extorting from the very
mouth of the person undergoing
interrogation for the commission of an
offense the very evidence with which to
prosecute and thereafter to convict
him.124
G. MIRANDA DOCTRINE
People v. Roxas, GR.No. L-16960-62, January 8, 1987

People v. Barasina, G.R. No. 109993, January 21, 1994
123 People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385, January 19, 1998
124 People v. Bonola, G.R. No. 116394, June 19, 1997
121
Cruz, 2003
119 Escobedo v. Illinois, 387 U.S. 478, 1964
120 People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 110290, January 25, 1995
118
122
lawiq.weebly.com
22
34
1. Person in custody must be informed at
the outset in clear and unequivocal
terms that he has a right to remain
silent.
2. After being so informed, he must be told
that anything he says can and will be
used against him in court.
3. The right to consult with a lawyer and to
have a lawyer with him during the
interrogation.
4. If he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him.
5. Even if he consents to answer questions
without the assistance of counsel, the
moment he asks for a lawyer at any
point
in
the
investigation,
the
interrogation must cease until an
attorney is present.
6. If the foregoing are not demonstrated,
no evidence obtained cannot be used
against.
a) When available:
applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article

III of the Constitution 127.
J. Sec. 2 of RA No. 7438 provides that
custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is under investigation in
connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed.
K. The rights under custodial investigation
are not available in administrative
proceedings 128.
L. What rights may be waived:
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to counsel
Waiver must be in writing and in the

presence of counsel.
M. What rights cannot be waived:
The rights under Sec. 12, Art. III are

available when the investigation is no
longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect, as when the suspect
has been taken into police custody and
the police carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements .125
1. Right to be informed of his right to

remain silent and to counsel;
2. Right to counsel when making the
waiver of the right to remain silent or to
counsel.
N. Rights
of
Person
Suspected
Subsequently Charged:
1. Before case is filed for preliminary

investigation but after being put into
custody or otherwise deprived of liberty,
and on being interrogated by police:
H. The
constitutional
safeguards
on
custodial investigation do not apply to
spontaneous statements, or those not
elicited through questioning by law
enforcement authorities but given in an
ordinary manner whereby the appellant
verbally admits to having committed the
offense. 126
a) The continuing right to remain silent and

counsel;
b) To be informed thereof;
c) Not to be subjected to force, violence,
threat or intimidation which vitiates free
will;
d) To have evidence obtained in violation of
these rights inadmissible as evidence.
I. A municipal mayor has "operational

supervision and control" over the local
police and may arguably be deemed a
law enforcement officer for purposes of
People v. Mara, G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994

People of the Philippines v. Eric Guillermo, G.R. No.
147786, January 20, 2004
and
2. After the case is filed in court:

a) To refuse to be witness against himself;
b) Not to have prejudice imputed on him as
a result of such refusal;
c) To testify on his behalf;
125
126
127
128
People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997

People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989
By: TZRT
23
34

d) To cross-examination; while testifying, to
refuse
questions
which
tend
to
incriminate him for some crime other
than the present charge.129
O. It was, therefore, wrong for the trial court

to hold that Section 12(1), Article III of
the Constitution is strictly limited to
custodial investigation and that it does
not apply to a person against whom a
criminal complaint or information has
already been filed because after its filing
he loses his right to remain silent and to
counsel. If we follow the theory of the
trial court, then police authorities and
other law enforcement agencies would
have a heyday in extracting confessions
or admissions from accused persons
after they had been arrested but before
they are arraigned because at such
stage
the
accused
persons
are
supposedly
not
entitled
to
the
enjoyment of the rights to remain silent
and to counsel 130
P. A police line-up is not considered part of
any custodial inquest because it is
conducted before that stage of
investigation is reached 131 and because
the process has not yet shifted from
investigatory to accusatory stage and it
is usually the witness or complainant who
is interrogated and who gives statement
in the course of the line up 132.
Q. However, after the start of the custodial
investigation, any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police
line-up is inadmissible. 133
People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989

People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 March 22, 1995
131 People v. Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999
132 People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 140383, July 12, 2001
133 People vs. Macam, G.R. Nos. 91011-12, November 24,
1994
129
130
RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13.
All persons, except
those
charged
with
offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable
by sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
A. BAIL
The security given for the release of a person in
custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guarantee his appearance before any court as
required under conditions specified under the Rules
of Court134.
B. The right to bail may be invoked once

detention commences even if no formal
charges have yet been filed. 135
C. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus does not suspend right to
bail 136.
D. Even when the accused has previously
jumped bail, still he cannot be denied
bail before conviction if it is a matter of
right. The remedy is to increase the
amount of bail 137.
E. An extraditee has also the right to apply
for bail.
F. Forms of Bail:
1. Corporate surety;
2. Property bond;
3. Cash deposit;
4. Recognizance
see Sec. 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure
135 Teehankee v Rovira, No. L-101, December 20, 1945
136 Sec.13, Art.III
137 Sy Guan v. Amparo, G.R. No. L-1771. December 4,
1947
134
lawiq.weebly.com
24
34
G. Bail is a matter of right if a person is
charged with an offense NOT punishable
by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment
or death.
BAIL, A MATTER OF RIGHT138

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as prescribed by law or
this rule:
(a) Before or after conviction by
the MTC; and
(b) Before conviction of the RTC of
an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. (Note that RA
9346 prohibited the imposition of
death penalty).
H. Bail is discretionary when a person is

charged with an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
death.
BAIL, WHEN DISCRETIONARY139
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, the court, on application,
may admit the accused to bail.
The court, in its discretion, may allow the
accused to continue on provisional liberty
after the same bail bond during the period to
appeal subject to the consent of the
bondsman.
If the court imposed a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more
than 20 years, the accused shall be denied
bail, or his bail previously granted shall be
cancelled, upon showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following
or other similar circumstances:
that the accused is a recidivist, quasirecidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has

committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteracion;
that the accused is found to have
previously
escaped
from
legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or has
violated the conditions of his bail without
valid justification;
that the accused committed the offense
while on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon;
that the circumstances of the accused or
his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or
that there is undue risk that during the
pendency of the appeal, the accused
may commit another crime.
The exercise of discretion of the court is only

limited in the determination of the gravity of
guilt of the accused. If after summary hearing, it
is determined that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong, the court has no choice but
to deny the application for bail. Inversely, if the
court finds that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is weak, the court has no discretion but
to grant bail.
I. BAIL vs. RECOGNIZANCE

BAIL BOND
An obligation under
seal given by the
accused with one or
more
sureties,
and
made payable to the
proper officer with the
condition to be void
upon performance by
the accused of such
acts as he may legally
be required to perform.
RECOGNIZANCE
An obligation of record,
entered into before
some
court
or
magistrate
duly
authorized to take it,
with the condition to do
some particular act.
J. Hearing
Whether bail is a matter of right or of

discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is
required to be given the prosecutor, or at
least he must be asked for his
recommendation, because in fixing the
amount of bail, the judge is required to
take into account a number of factors140.
K. WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED 141

1. No person, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution, shall be admitted
to bail if:
Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387,

September 10, 1997
141 SEC. 7, RULE 114
140
138 Sec.
4, Rule 114 Sec. 4, Rule 114

139 Sec. 5, Rule 114
By: TZRT
25
34

a) Charged with a capital offense, or an
offense
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment or death;
AND
b) evidence of guilt is strong.
L. Standards for fixing amount of bail:

1. Financial ability of accused;
2. Nature and circumstances of offense;
3. Penalty for offense;
4. Character and reputation of accused;
5. Age and health of accused;
6. Weight of evidence against him;
7. Probability of his appearance at trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bail;
9. Whether he was a fugitive from justice
when arrested ; and
10. Pendency of other cases where he is
on bail142.
M. Excessive bail shall not be required
Q. Traditionally, the right to bail has not

been recognized and is not available to
the military, as an exception to the Bill of
Rights 146.
R. When an alien is detained by the Bureau
of Immigration for deportation pursuant
to an order of deportation by the
Deportation Board, the Regional Trial
Courts have no power to release such
alien on bail even in habeas corpus
proceedings because there is no law
authorizing it. 147
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL

Section 14. (1) No person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
143
N. When the accused is charged with an

offense
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua or higher, a hearing on the
motion for bail must be conducted by
the judge to determine whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong 144.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the

accused
shall
be
presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard
by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have
a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in
his
behalf.
However,
after
arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.
O. Since bail is constitutionally available to

all persons, it must be available to one
who is detained even before formal
charges is filed 145. It is sufficient that the
person claiming the right must be under
the custody of the law either when he
has been arrested or has surrendered
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
P. As a general rule, the constitutional right
to bail is available only in criminal
proceedings.
Thus, it has been
repeatedly held that respondents in
deportation proceedings, which are
administrative in nature, do not enjoy
the right.
Sunga v. Judge Salud, Adm. Matter No. 2205-MJ,

November 19, 1981
143 Sec. 9, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
144 Baylon v. Judge Sison, AM No. 92-7360-0, April 6, 1995
145 Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil 634, 1945
A. Criminal Due Process

1. Requisites:
a) Accused is heard by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
b) Accused is proceeded against under the
orderly processes of law;
142
Comendador v. de Villa, G.R. No. 93177, August 2,

1991
147 Go. v. Ramos G.R. No. 167569, Sept. 4, 2009
146
lawiq.weebly.com
26
34
c) Accused is given notice and opportunity
to be heard; and
d) Judgment rendered was within the
authority of a constitutional law148.
2. Right to present evidence includes the

right to testify in ones favor and the
right to be given time to call witnesses.
3. If accused of two offenses, he is entitled
to a trial of each case, and it is error for
the court to consider in one case the
evidence adduced against him in
another.
4. Right to be assisted by counsel
5. Right to counsel during the trial is not
subject to waiver153.
6. Right to compulsory process to compel
the attendance of witnesses in his
behalf.
7. Right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him
8. Right to speedy, impartial and public
trial
9. Right to meet the witnesses face to face
(Right to confrontation)
10. Right to compulsory process to secure
attendance
of
witnesses
and
production of evidence
2. To warrant a finding of prejudicial

publicity there must be allegation and
proof that the judges have been unduly
influenced, not simply that they might
be, by the barrage of publicity. 149
B. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
1. Every
circumstance
favoring
the
innocence of the accused must be
taken into account;
2. The proof against him must survive the
test of reason; the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway
judgment 150.
3. Reasonable doubt
It is meant that which of possibility may
arise, but it is doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an
inability, after such investigation, to let the
mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.151
4. Equipoise Rule
E. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE

AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
AGAINST HIM
1. Description, not designation
offense, is controlling.
2. Purposes:
It is the evidence of both sides are

equally balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence
should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused152.
The right to be heard can be understood

to mean the totality of the rights
embodied in an adequate criminal
procedural system, which can be viewed
as expressing both the qualities of the
hearer and the manner of the hearing.
3. In Soriano v. Sandiganbayan 155 , the

petitioner claims that he cannot be
convicted of bribery under the Revised
Penal Code because to do so would be
violative of as constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. The
Supreme Court held that the contention
is wrong because a reading of the
D. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL

1. Right to present evidence and to be
present at the trial
Mejia v. Pamaran, No. L-56741, April 15, 1988

Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. Np. L-20707, March 30,
1970
150 People v. Austria, G.R. No. 55109, April 8, 1991
151 People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971
152 Corpus v. People, G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991
the
a) To furnish the accused with such a

description of the charge against him as
will enable him to make his defense;
b) To avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal for protection against a further
prosecution for the sane cause; and
c) To inform the court of the facts alleged,
so that it may decide whether they are
sufficient in law to support a conviction, if
one should be had154.
C. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND

COUNSEL
of
148
149
Flores v. Ruiz, No. L-35707, May 31, 1979

U.S. v. Karelsen, No. 1376, January 21, 1904
155 G.R. No. L-65952, July 31, 1984
153
154
By: TZRT
27
34

regularity and not tainted with any
impropriety157.
information
which
has
been
reproduced clearly makes out a case
of bribery so that the petitioner cannot
claim deprivation of the right to be
informed.
F. RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC

TRIAL
1. Purpose
To serve as safeguard against attempt to

employ our courts as instruments of
persecution. The knowledge that every
criminal
trial
is
subject
to
contemporaneous review in the forum of
public opinion is an effective restraint on
possible abuse of judicial power.
2. Speedy
It means free from vexatious, capricious
and oppressive delays;
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily

relative. A determination as to whether the
right has been violated involves the
weighing of several factors such as the
length of the delay, the reason for the
delay, the conduct of the prosecution and
the accused, and the efforts exerted by
the defendant to assert his right, as well as
the prejudice and damage caused to the
accused 156.
G. RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO

FACE (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION)
1. Two-fold purpose:
a) To afford the accused an opportunity to
test the testimony of the witness by crossexamination; and
b) To allow the judge to observe the
deportment of the witness .159
2. Right to cross-examination may be

waived.
3. Testimony of witness who was not crossexamined is not admissible as evidence
for being hearsay160.
4. If
cross-examination
actually
commenced, but, for lack of material
time, was not completed, and the
witness in the meantime died before
cross-examination could be resumed,
so much of the testimony as had
3. Impartial
The accused entitled to cold neutrality of

an impartial judge;
4. Public
To prevent possible abuses which may be

committed against the accused.
Public trial is when anyone interested in

observing the manner a judge conducts the
proceedings in his courtroom may do so.
There is to be no ban on such attendance.
The reason for this safeguard is the belief that
the accused is afforded further protection,
that his trial is likely to be conducted with
156
People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003
General public may be excluded when

the evidence to be presented in the
proceeding may be characterized as
offensive to decency or public morals.
A public trial is not synonymous with a
publicized trial; it only implies that court
doors must be open to those who wish to
come, sit in available seats, and conduct
themselves with decorum and observe the
trial process.158
The right may be waived. But waiver is not
to be inferred from mere failure of the
accused to urge the trial of the case. Such
waiver or abandonment may be
presumed only when the postponement of
the trial has been sought and obtained by
the accused himself or by his attorney. The
presumption is always against the waiver
of constitutionally protected rights.
Garcia v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30104, July 25, 1973

Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former
President Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
159 U.S. v. Javier, No. 12990, January 21, 1918
160 U.S. v. Javier, G.R. No. L-8781, March 30, 1914
157
158
lawiq.weebly.com
28
34
already been covered by crossexamination is admissible. 161
5. An accused is not entitled, as a matter
of right, to be present during the
preliminary examination nor to crossexamine the witnesses
presented
against him before his arrest, the
purpose of said examination being
merely to determine whether or not
there is sufficient reason to issue a
warrant of arrest.
A preliminary
examination is generally a proceeding
ex parte in which the person charged
has no right to participate or be
present.162
appear for the purpose of identification

by the witnesses of the prosecution,
unless he unqualifiedly admits in open
court after his arraignment that he is
the person named as the defendant in
the case on trial.
J. The presence
mandatory:
accused
is
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Section 15. The privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public
safety requires it.
A. Writ of Habeas Corpus
issued by the court directed to a person
detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at
designated time and place, with the day
and cause of his capture and detention, to
do, to submit to, and to receive whatever
the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf166.
a) That the witness is really material;

b) That he is guilty of no neglect in previously
obtaining attendance of said witness;
c) That the witness will be available at the
time desired; and
d) That no similar evidence could be
obtained.
1. When Available:
I. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
a) In cases of illegal detention or restraint; or

b) In custody cases
1. This is mandatory upon the court

whenever the accused has been
arraigned, notified of date/s of hearing,
and his absence is unjustified 165.
2. The right to be present during the trial
may be waived provided that after
arraignment he may be compelled to
People v. Seneris, G.R. No. L-49933. August 6, 1980

Marinas v. Siochi, G.R. No. L-25707, May 14, 1981
163 Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 ed., p 348
164 People v. Sandal, No. 32394, September 5, 1930
165 People v. Judge Salas No. L-66469, July 29, 1986
the
1. During arraignment and plea;

2. During trial, for identification, unless the
accused has already stipulated on his
identity during the pre-trial and that he
is the one who will be identified by the
witnesses as the accused in the criminal
case; or
3. During promulgation of sentence, unless
for a light offense.
H. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS TO

SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND
PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE
1. The accused is entitled to the issuance
of subpoena ad testificandum and
subpoena duces tecum for the purpose
of compelling the attendance of the
witnesses and the production of
evidence that he may need for his
defense.
2. Failure to obey the process is punishable
as contempt of court; if necessary, the
witness may even be arrested so he
can give the needed evidence 163.
3. Requirements 164:
of
2. Primary requisite for its availability is

actual deprivation of personal liberty,
or deprivation of right of custody.
3. Habeas corpus lies only where the
restraint of a persons liberty has been
judicially adjudged to be illegal or
unlawful 167.
161
162
Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law, 2006 ed., p. 199

In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Wilfredo S.
Sumulong-Torres, G.R. No. 122338, December 29, 1995
166
167
By: TZRT
29
34

4. Once a person detained is DULY
CHARGED in court, he may no longer
question his detention through a
petition for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus. His remedy would be to quash
the information and/or the warrant of
arrest duly issued. The writ of habeas
corpus should not be allowed after the
party sought to be released had been
charged before any court. The term
court in this context includes quasijudicial
bodies
of
governmental
agencies AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE
PERSONS
CONFINEMENT,
like
the
Deportation Board of the Bureau of
Immigration168
B. Purpose of the Suspension of the Writ of

Habeas Corpus:
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17.
No person shall be
compelled to be a witness against
himself.
A. Availability
Not only in criminal proceedings, but also

in all other government proceedings,
including civil actions and administrative
or legislative investigations.
May be
claimed not only by the accused (when
called to testify) but also by the witness to
whom an incriminating question is
addressed.
B. Effect of Violation
To enable the government to deal with

situation of an invasion or a rebellion and
the government must charge JUDICIALLY
those who are involved in the rebellion or
invasion.
In People v. Alicando 171 , declared that

once the primary source is shown to have
been unlawfully obtained, any secondary
or derivative evidence derived from it is
inadmissible.
C. Scope
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
1. Applies only to testimonial compulsion
and production of documents, papers

and chattels in court except when
books of account are to be examined
in the exercise of police power and the
power of taxation. An accused may be
compelled to be photographed or
measured, his garments may be
removed, and his body may be
examined.
2. An order requiring the accused to write
so that his handwriting may be
validated
with
the
documentary
evidence
is
covered
by
the
constitutional proscription against selfincrimination.172
Section 16. All persons shall have the

right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies.
A. The constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of cases is not limited to the
accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all cases,
including civil and administrative cases,
and in all proceedings, including judicial
and quasi-judicial hearings 169.
B. In case of violation of the right to a
speedy trial, the remedy for violation of
said right is dismissal obtained through
mandamus. 170
D. Waiver of the
incrimination
against
self-
1. Either directly or by failure to invoke it,
See notes under Rights of the Accused During

Trial
Go v. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, Sept. 4.2009

Lopez, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September
6, 2001
170 Roque v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129978, May 12, 1999
right
provided the waiver is certain and

unequivocal
and
intelligently,
understandingly and willingly made.
168
169
171
172
G.R. No. 117487, December 2, 1995

Samson v. Beltran, No. 32025, September 23, 1929
lawiq.weebly.com
30
34
2. The witness may be cross examined and
asked incriminating questions on any

matter he testified to on direct
examination.
2. Exceptions:
a) As punishment for a crime whereof one
has been duly convicted;175
b) Service in defense of the State176;
c) Naval enlistment177;
d) Posse comitatus;178
e) Return to work order in industries affected
with public interest;179 and
f) Patria Potestas.180
E. Transactional Immunity Statute

The testimony of any person or whose
possession of documents or other evidence
necessary or convenient to determine the
truth in any investigation conducted is
immune from criminal prosecution for an
offense to which such compelled testimony
relates.173
C. Slavery
The civil relation wherein one man has
absolute power over the life, fortune and
liberty of another.
F. Use and Fruit Immunity Statute

This prohibits the use of the witness
compelled testimony and its fruits in any
manner in connection with the criminal
prosecution of the witness.174
D. Peonage
A condition of enforced servitude by
which the servitor is restrained of his liberty
and compelled to labor in liquidation of
some debt or obligation real or pretended,
against his will.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Section 18. (1) No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
E. Restraint of the individual so he can be

compelled to work for another, be it the
government or a private party, violates
the constitutional guaranty, subject to
certain exceptions.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any

form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the
party
shall
have
been
duly
convicted.
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT
A. Non-Detention by Reason of Political

Beliefs or Aspiration
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall

not
be
imposed,
nor
cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling
reasons
involving
heinous
crimes,
the
Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
No man is to be interfered with because of

his opinions, provided his avowal of them
does not disturb public order or
established law.
B. Involuntary Servitude
Condition where one is compelled by
force, coercion, or imprisonment, and
against his will, to labor for another, whether
he is paid or not.
1. General Rule:
173
174
No involuntary servitude shall exist.
Sec. 18(2), Art. III

Sec 4, Art. II
177 Robertson v. Baldwin, No. 334, January 25, 1897
178 U.S. v. Pompeya, No. 10255, August 6, 1915
179 Kaisahan ng Mangagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco
Sawmills, G.R. No. L-1573, March 29, 1948
180 Art. 211, par.(2), FC
175
176
Sec. 18 (8), Art. XIII

Galman v. Pamaran, No. L-71208-09, August 30, 1985
By: TZRT
31
34

(2) The employment of physical,
psychological,
or
degrading
punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard
or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt
with by law.
A. Mere severity does not constitute cruel
or unusual punishment.
To violate
constitutional guarantee, penalty must
be flagrant and plainly oppressive,
disproportionate to the nature of the
offense as to shock the senses of the
community. 181
B. To
be CRUEL AND UNUSUAL OR

EXCESSIVE,
the
penalty
must
be
flagrantly
disproportionate
to
the
offense
no
matter
under
what
circumstances the offense may be
committed.
A specific sum levied upon any person

belonging to a certain class without regard
to property or occupation (e.g. Community
Tax )
B. A tax is not a debt since it is an

obligation arising from law. Hence, its
non-payment maybe validly punished
with imprisonment.
C. While debtor cannot be imprisoned for
failure to pay his debt, he can be validly
punished in a criminal action if he
contracted his debt through fraud 183.
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Section 21. No person shall be twice
put in jeopardy of punishment for
the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same
act.
C. Mere fines and imprisonment are not

violative. To be so, the penalty must be
inhuman and barbarous and shocking to
the conscience.
A. The rule of double jeopardy means that

when a person was charged with an
offense and the case was terminated by
acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner without his consent; he cannot
again be charged with the same or
identical offense.184
D. RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of

death penalty.
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20.
No person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment
of a poll tax.
B. An acquittal is final and unappealable

on the ground of double jeopardy,
whether it happens in the trial court level
or before the Court of Appeals. Only
when there is a finding of a sham trial
can the doctrine of double jeopardy be
not invoked because the people, as
represented by the prosecution, were
denied due process. 185
A. Coverage:
1. Debt
Any civil obligation arising from a
contract. It includes even debts obtained
through fraud since no distinction is made in
the Constitution.182
C. Two types:
2. Poll Tax
People v. Estoista, G.R. No. L-5793, August 27, 1953

Ganaway v. Quillen, G.R. No. L-18619, February 20,
1922
Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. L-63419, 18 December 1986

Melo v. People, No. L-3580, March 22, 1950
185 People v. Tria- Tirona, G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2006
181
183
182
184
lawiq.weebly.com
32
34
1. Double jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense; and
2. Double jeopardy of punishment for the
same act
D. DISMISSAL OF ACTION, when made at

the
instance of the accused, DOES
NOT put accused in
first jeopardy,
EXCEPT:
1. When the ground for dismissal is
insufficiency of evidence; or
2. When the proceedings have been
unreasonably prolonged as to violate
the right of the accused to a speedy
trial.186
E. Requisites for double jeopardy for the

same offense:
1. Valid complaint or information;
2. Filed before a competent court;
3. To which defendant has pleaded; and
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or
convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise
terminated
without
his
express consent. 187
F. Crimes covered:
1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or
frustration thereof or for any offense
which necessarily includes
or
is
necessarily included in the offense
charged in the original complaint or
information; and
2. When an act is punished by a law and
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under
either
shall
bar
another
prosecution for the same act.
G. Where
the offenses charged are

penalized either by different sections of
the same statute or by different statutes,
the important inquiry relates to the
IDENTITY OF OFFENSES CHARGED: the
constitutional protection against double
jeopardy is available only where an
identity is shown to exist between the
earlier and
charged. 188
the
subsequent
offenses
H. Where one is punished by law and an

ordinance, the inquiry is on the identity
of the act.
I. Doctrine of Supervening Event
It allows the prosecution for another
offense if subsequent development changes
the character of the first indictment under
which he may have already been charged
or convicted.189
J. Double jeopardy for the same act does

not require prior conviction or acquittal
or dismissal of the first information, as
long as the first jeopardy has already
attached. 190
K. Double jeopardy DOES NOT attach in

preliminary investigations. 191
L. Conviction of accused shall NOT bar
another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense
originally charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission;
2. Facts constituting the graver offense
arose or discovered only after the filing
of the former complaint or information;
and
3. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense was
made
without
the
consent
of
prosecutor or offended party.192
M. Inseparable offenses
1. Where one offense is inseparable from
another and proceeds from the same
act, they cannot be the subject of
separate prosecutions.
2. However, it is possible for one act to give
rise to several
crimes: separate
People v. Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987

People v. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992
190 People v. Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987
191 People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 44205, February 16, 1993
192 People v. Judge Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23,
1992
188
189
186
187
Cue v. IAC, G.R. No. 74989-90, November 6, 1989

People v. Ylagan, No. 38443, November 25, 1933
By: TZRT
33
34

Prohibition
prosecutions for each crime may be

filed provided the elements of the
several crimes are not identical.
applies only to criminal

legislation which affects the substantial
rights of the accused. It also applies to
criminal procedural law prejudicial to the
accused. But it is improper to apply the
prohibition to an executive proclamation
suspending the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus.
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER

Section 22. No ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.
A. Ex Post Facto Law
4. Even if the law be penal and

retroactive, it will still not be ex post
facto if it does not operate to the
disadvantage of the accused.
5. If the punishment originally imposed is
retroactively made heavier, or the
method of its execution made more
severe, then the law will be subject to
the constitutional prohibition.
It is one that would make a previous act

criminal although it was not so at the time it
was committed.
A law can never be considered ex post

facto as long as it operates prospectively
since its strictures would cover only
offenses committed after and not before
its enactment.
B. Bill of Attainder
It is legislative act that inflicts
punishment without trial.194
1. Kinds193
a) Law making an act criminal which was
not so before its passage;
b) Law aggravating the penalty for a crime
committed before its passage;
c) Law inflicting a greater or more severe
penalty;
d) Law altering the legal rules of evidence
and allowing the receipt of less or
different testimony than what the law
required at the time of commission, in
order to convict accused;
e) Law assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty of deprivation of right for
something which when done was lawful;
and
f) Law depriving accused of some lawful
protection to which he had been
entitled, such as protection of a former
conviction
or
acquittal,
or
a
proclamation of amnesty.
1. It substitutes legislative fiat for a judicial

determination of guilt. Thus, it is only
when a statute applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable
members of a group in such a way as
to inflict punishment on them without
judicial trial that it becomes a bill of
attainder.
2. The provision prevents the legislature
from assuming judicial magistracy. It is
thus a general safeguard against
legislative exercise of the judicial
function, or more simply trial by
legislature.
2. Characteristics:
a) Refers to criminal matters;
b) Retroactive; and
c) Prejudicial to the accused.
3. Application:
193
U.S. v. Diaz-Conde, No. 18208, February 14, 1922
194
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall 277
lawiq.weebly.com
34
34

Art III - Political Science Class

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art III - Political Science Class

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law IQ for Law Students

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

B. TWO KINDS OF RIGHTS

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived

Those that are in relation to the participation of the

Ex. Freedom of Speech and assembly

A. DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Ex. Right against Involuntary Servitude, Right

1. ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS:

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE III:

Sec. 19 Right against excessive fines and

Sec. 1 Right to due process and equal

a) Substantive due process

2. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Ermita Hotel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of

Publication of laws is part of substantive

7. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAIVABLE

a) This serves as a restriction on actions of

(1) Impartial court or tribunal clothed

8. DUE PROCESS DOES NOT ALWAYS

B. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

(4) Judgment rendered upon lawful

It includes the right to exist and the right

Taada v. Tuvera, No. L-63915, December 29, 1986

It requires that all persons or things similarly

1. What the Constitution requires is equality

It means anything that can come under

The right to be heard may be waived as it

Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 88050,

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

The grouping of persons or things similar

RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND

Not all searches and seizures are

4. The right is personal; it may be invoked

A. The right against unreasonable search

Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, No. L-10280,

People v. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5, 1939

a) For a search warrant:

Such facts and circumstances which would

Such facts and circumstances which

a) For a search warrant

The judge must, before issuing a search

It is the taking of a person into custody in order that

D. Requisites of Valid Warrant:

People v. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992

Must refer to one specific offense 24.

What the Constitution underscores is the

Asian Surety v. Herrera, No. L-25232, December 20, 1973

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

If on the basis thereof he finds no probable

5. The warrant must describe particularly

c) Distinction between the objectives of the

3. After personal examination under oath

4. On the basis of their personal knowledge

Hearsay is not allowed. It must not be

People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 118315, June 20, 1996

Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988

It is an order in writing issued in the name

1. A search warrant, to be valid, must

Only the judge has the power to issue a