D.

MIRANDA RIGHTS

Section 12, Art. III.

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 the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.

called the Miranda Doctrine (Miranda vs Arizona)

Miranda Doctrine prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person
must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may
be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of
these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Purpose of the Doctrine
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a criminal
defendant's privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during
custodial investigation by the police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the
practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court
held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination.
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine

(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his
counsel present when being questioned; and
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if
he so desires.
Custodial investigation defined

Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.

Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an

unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has
been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is

investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.

Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:

(a) Voluntary
(b) With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel

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. (People v. Agustin)

(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he

says can and will be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of
one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which

vitiate the free will shall be used against him

(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited
(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are
inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to
counsel

Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for
postponement. He must be provided with counsel de oficio.

RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board
of Claims under DOJ

Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the
police desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence
against him by the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of
the res gestae.

In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived. The

Constitution says; These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel. In localities where there are no lawyers, the State must
bring the individual to a place where there is one.

Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges are filed

against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play).

In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. What the
Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence,
when it may be material. In fact, an accused may be validly compelled to be
photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or
to move his body to enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running
afould of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

E. RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13, Art. III. 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.

Bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him
or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before any court as may be required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule 114,
Rules of Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Death,
when evidence of guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.

In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable bu sufficient sureties.

One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has
surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as in the case where through
counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a hospital communicated his
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail

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.

Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail

(a) Ability to post bail

(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law
(d) Character and reputation of the accused
(e) Health of the accused
(f) Strength of the evidence
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail
(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the
law.

In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas

nevertheless agreed to remain in legal custody during the pendency of the
trial of his criminal case. The Court held that he does not have the right to
bail, because bu his act he has waived his right.

(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in
deportation and extradition proceedings.
Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.

In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right
to bail. It is because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because
soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause
great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal protection clause ebcause
equal protection applies only to those who are equally situated.

(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.

In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal

proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal proceedings, a
respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He should
apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried.

F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 14, Art. III.

1.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.

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.
The Rights of the Accused Include
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Criminal due process;

Presumption of innocence;
Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence; and
8. trial in absentia
1. Criminal Due Process
Criminal process includes
a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges
b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
c) Period of trial
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by
law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the
Constitution and the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of the
accused: right to Preliminary investigation)

Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under

circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely making his defense

or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.

There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is
impleaded for violation of such law.

There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there is
denial thereof.

2. Presumption of Innocence

Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution.

Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of

the defense

The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the

experience of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an
inference of guilt, as the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the
righteous are as bold as a lion.)

The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational
connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the
inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to
be a purely arbitrary mandate. Cooley

No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make
a statement of any sort.

In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election,

section 4 of BP Blg. 52 says that the filing of charges for the commission of
such crimes before civil court or military tribunal after preliminary
investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact (disqualification).
The Court held that this provision violates the guarantee of presumption of
innocence. Although filing of charges is only prima facie evidence and may be
rebutted, the proximity of elections and consequent risk of not having time to
rebut the prima facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though
guilty even before trial.

Equipoise Rule evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel

Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or
even the life of the accused

Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and
placed under investigation for the commission of a crime.

This is not subject to waiver.

Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.

If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:

(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before
arraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de
oficio must be appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give
him a reasonable time to get one.

4. Nature and Cause of Accusation

Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will
enable him to make his defenses;
(2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for
the same cause;
(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.

The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The real
nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the
information. It is not determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor
from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated.)

If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the
accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present
evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.

Void for Vagueness Rule accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge
against him and to due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such
indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to
determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and hence, shall be
avoided.

In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for Vagueness
Doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute
precision or mathematical exactitude.

5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Time expired from the filing of the information

Length of delay involved
Reasons for the delay
Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
Prejudice caused to the defendant.

Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to an acquittal

and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the effect
even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused

Remedy if the Right is Violated

(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas
corpus.
Speedy trial 1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is
pronounced upon him
Impartial trial the accused is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
It is an element of due process.

Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their
relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is
offensive to decency or public morals, the public may be excluded.

The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are
conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or if failed to
object thereto.

The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to promulgation of

sentence.

General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by
not showing up. However, the court can still compel the attendance of the
accused if necessary for identification purposes.

Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is

indeed the person charged with the offense and named in the
information, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which he
is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.

Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been
arraigned.

There is also Promulgation in Absentia

While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment,

the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its
validity

The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court
regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a
bail bond

6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face

Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of dying declarations
(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
With respect to child testimony

Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as

evidence for being hearsay.

If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed,

his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material
points of his direct testimony had been covered on cross.

The right to confrontation may be waived.

7. Compulsory Process

The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and

subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of
witness and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense.

Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court.

There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for

conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is material of any

witness under circumstances that would make him unavailable from attending
the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
G. HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, Art. III. 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.
Writ of Habeas Corpus is a written order issued by a court, directed to a person
detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place with the day and cause of his caption and detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus the right to have an immediate
determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
The President may suspend the privilege:
(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion
(2) when public safety requires it.

Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been
judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)

The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention

To secure the detainees release
The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and must be
acted upon immediately

When available (enumeration not exclusive)

restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint
may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:
1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the

restraint of the person

2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such sentence is void as
to the excess.
May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto
When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar)
Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty than was
subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the same offense.
(Gumabon vs Director of Prisons)
Unlawful denial of bail
When not available (enumeration not exclusive)
the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer under a
process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) persons could not be found; remedy is
to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights
Procedure
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege
The President
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it

Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed
forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for

a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist

and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil
courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire into the factual
basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is written in Article VII, Sec. 18
of the Constitution.

H. WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.

SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any
qualified person or entity in the following order:

1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and
parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there
is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other
authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.

SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or
any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere
in the Philippines.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be
returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it
may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial
Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before
such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of
Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the
threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment of the

docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice or judge shall
docket the petition and act upon it immediately.

SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege
the following:

1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible
for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain,
the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
6. The relief prayed for.

The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge
shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The
clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of urgent
necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and
may deputize any officer or person to serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which
shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.

SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of court who refuses
to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the
same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice
to other disciplinary actions.

SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a
judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain
a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served

personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.

SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the
respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits
which shall, among other things, contain the following:

1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining
to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in
the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the
death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death or disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death
or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.

The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution
and the prosecution of the case.

A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.

SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall be raised in the
return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.

SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings and motions are
prohibited:

1. Motion to dismiss;

2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position

paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10.
Memorandum;
11.
Motion for reconsideration
of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12.
Petition
for
certiorari,
mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails to file a return,
the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However,
the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues
and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.

The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as
petitions for habeas corpus.

SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:

(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by
an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing
their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution
referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the
officers involved.

The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that
shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and
any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it
shall issue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules
and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.

(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.

The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be
supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party.

If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged

nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.

The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the
right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.

The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make
the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all
parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance,
unless extended for justifiable reasons.

(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and
after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of
any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which
constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to
produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf
of the movant.

The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the

privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge
may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.

The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the

constitutional rights of all the parties.

(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu
proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act
No. 6981.

The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government
agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping
and securing their safety.

SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon verified motion of the
respondent and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue an inspection
order or production order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.

A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by affidavits or
testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the
respondent.

SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court to be punished for contempt.
The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.

SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required.

establish their claims by substantial evidence.

The parties shall

The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the
performance of duty.

The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the
performance of duty.

The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.

SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven
by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs
as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.

SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.

The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the
adverse judgment.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.

SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but
shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as
the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall,
motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready for further
proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute
the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order
archiving the case.

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of
January of every year.

SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of
separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.

SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ
shall be available by motion in the criminal case.

The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available
under the writ of amparo.

SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a

petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition
for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.

SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial
and appellate courts.

SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, following its
publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.

I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES

Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases

Speedy trial
Refers to trial phase only
Criminal cases only

Speedy disposition of cases

Refers to disposition of cases (All phases)
Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings

Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

SC: 24 months from submission
All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC
All other lower courts: 3 months

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A)

60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution
Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated
1.
2.
3.
4.

Length of delay
Reason of delay
Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
Prejudice caused by delay

Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case:

Dismissal through mandamus

J. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Based on:

1. Humanitarian reasons it is intended to prevent the State, with all its

coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may
convict him;
2. Practical reasons a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to
perjure himself for his own protection

Applicable to:

Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and

administrative or legislative investigations

Transactional Immunity Statute 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.
Use and Fruit Immunity Statute prohibits the use of the witness' compelled
testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution for
an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.
May be Claimed by:
1. Accused at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the
purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him
2. Witness only when an incriminating question is asked, since the
witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
question to be put to him

He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:

a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if
the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him
to civil liability
b) the question relates to past criminality for which the
witness can no longer be prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a
validly enacted statute

Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the
visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the
conditions of the charter granted to them.

Scope:
(1) Testimonial Compulsion

In Villaflor v. Summers, since the kernel of the privilege was the prohibition
of testimonial compulsion, the Court was willing to compel a pregnant
woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of being tested for
pregnancy. Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a violation of her
constitutional right against self-incrimination.

(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of

accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power and power of
taxation.

What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort

communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would
not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness.

The right does not prohibit

the examination of the body of the
accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical evidence.
Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against
self-incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the
accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification.

The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his

possession which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third person in
custody of the document may be compelled to produce it.

Right May be Waived:

-

Either:
a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and
unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.

Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.

J. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Involuntary Servitude the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or

imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
Involuntary Servitude Includes
(1) Slavery civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life,
fortune and liberty of another;
(2) 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
General Rule
No involuntary service in any form shall exist.
Exceptions
1.

Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted
(Sec. 18, Art. III)

2.

Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense (Sec. 4,

Art. II)

3.

Naval enlistment remain in service until the end of voyage so that the
crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit
new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)

4.

Posse comitatus in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law,
the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a certain age to
assist them (US vs Pompeya)

5.

Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan

ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)

6.

Patria Potestas unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so

long as they are under parental power and to observe respect and reverence
to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code)

US vs
Pompeya

An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town may
be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the public
and the preservation of peace and good order is constitutional. It was
enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state and does not

Pollock vs
Williams

violate the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.

No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from
compulsory service, and no state can make the quitting of work any
component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for
holding unwilling persons to labor.

K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

Section 19, Art. III.

1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall 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.

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.

When is a penalty cruel, degrading and inhuman?

(1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Ex.
Being drawn and quartered.
(2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation. Ex. Being
tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.
Standards Used
(1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of
human beings.
(2) It must not be applied arbitrarily.
(3) It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
(4) It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively
than a less severe punishment would.
Excessive Fine

A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the

offense.

Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the
punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or
inhuman.
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.

L. NON IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
tax.

For humanitarian reasons an added guaranty of the liberty of persons

against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts
because of their misfortune of being poor

Debt any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting in
any liability to pay in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt

If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his
subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex
contractu.

A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:

1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
POLL TAX
General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.
Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax
Poll tax a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class
without regard to his property or occupation.

A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law. Hence, its nonpayment maybe validly punished with imprisonment.

M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Section 21, Art. III. 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.

Double jeopardy 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.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1.
2.
3.
4.

valid complaint or information

filed before a competent court
to which defendant has pleaded, and
defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy

(1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense
(1st sentence of Section 21)
(2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd sentence of Sec. 21)
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction
(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
(d) After the person is arraigned
(e) Such person enters a valid plea.
When does jeopardy NOT attach:
(a) If information does not charge any offense

(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of
not guilty for accused.
(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
1)
2)
3)
4)

Acquittal
Conviction
Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
Dismissal on the merits.

Examples of termination of jeopardy:

(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This amounts to an
acquittal.
(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on the merits.
(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for
reinvestigation filed by the accused.
(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an acquittal.
When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:
(a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is based on
violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.
(b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits
(c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.
(d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.
(e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.
What are considered to be the SAME OFFENSE:
(a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases.
(b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense.
(c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.

Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different
provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the other so
long as none of the exceptions apply.

Same Act

Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the
ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary
that the offense be the same.

Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
information where:
(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from
the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former information.
(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent
of the fiscal and the offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but
were not discovered because of the prosecutions incompetence, it would not
be considered a supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused

If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double
jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. Such
court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial
court.

In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable; hence,
there was no denial of the right to speedy trial. Second, the dismissal was
with the consent of the accused. Hence, reinstatement did not violate the
right against double jeopardy.

N. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER

Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was
innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action.

(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed.
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
that which the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than
the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to
convict the accused.
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only BUT, in effect,
imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful.
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay Villegas Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(a) Must refer to criminal matters
(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application

In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law
prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law.... The
contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is
incorrect because the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to matters of
procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the
nature of ex post facto law.

In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules of
evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v.
Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and unsubstantial manner to
the disadvantage of the accused.

In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the Sandiganbayan

for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On March 16, 1982, BP Blg.
195 was passed authorizing suspension of public officers against whom an
information may be pending at any stage. On July 22, 1982, the court
suspended the accused. The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised
Penal Code that suspension of an officer during trial shall not be considered a
penalty. The suspension in the case is merely a preventive and not a penal
measure which therefore does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.

BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. If
the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties.
(Cummings v. Missouri)

(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)

Elements of Bill of Attainder
1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable
members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.

O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION

Section 3(1), Art. III. 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.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

letters
messages
telephone calls
telegrams, and
the likes

Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed

1. Upon lawful order of the court, or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be based

upon a government official's assessment that public safety and order demand
such intrusion.

Public Order and Safety the security of human lives, liberty, and property against
the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.

RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides penalties for specific
violations of private communication. Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows courtauthorized taps, under specific conditions for the crimes of treason,
espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping.

P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the

government has the burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308 in this
case) is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly
drawn.
In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all
incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It
merely requires that the law be narrowly focused. Intrusions into the right must be
accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent
unconstitutional invasions.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any reason a
woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable, that
is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb.
(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but
the Court has recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution.
The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United
States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it
to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain fundamental rights
are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights
may be justified only by a compelling state interest.
(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a womans decision
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. But a womans right to
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way and for
whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While recognizing
the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that some state
regulation in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A state may
properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

Q. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
full text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2008. That
Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

Constitutional Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three (3)
newspapers of general circulation.

Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?

General rule: The aggrieved party.

Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the

petition may be filed by:
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely:
the spouse, children and parents; or
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Where can the petition be filed?

(1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
(2) Supreme Court;
(3) Court of Appeals; or
(4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of government
offices.

No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner.
The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted upon immediately,
without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later
than 15 days from the filing of the petition.

The verified written petition shall allege the following:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects
the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;

(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and
the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if
known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the
respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order
enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the
issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the
writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from
its issuance; or, in case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ
under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it. The
writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall
not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its issuance.

A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the
court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.

The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.

The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the writ, which period may
be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons.

Contents of Return
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communication, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information subject of the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such
data or information, and the purpose for its collection;

(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.

When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the
petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner
to submit evidence.

Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers when
the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information
in question shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the
data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or
privileged character.

The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or
judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the
parties.

Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful
officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) work
days.

When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ
shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition
of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the
criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice System
complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These writs which protect
the rights of the individual against the state are as follows:

The Writ of Habeas Corpus a writ ordering a person who detained

another to produce the body and bring it before a judge or court. Its
purpose is to determine whether the detention is lawful or not;

The Writ of Mandamus a writ ordering a governmental agency to

perform a ministerial function;

The Writ of Prohibition a writ ordering a person to prohibit the

commission of an illegal act;

The Writ of Certiorari a writ ordering a person to correct an erroneous

act committed with grave abuse of discretion; and

The Writ of Amparo a writ designed to protect the most basic right of
a human being. These are the right to life, liberty and security
guaranteed by the Constitution.

R. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

Section 7, Art. III. 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.

the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and in his
government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and
intelligently.

Rights Guaranteed
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.

These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas, Philippine
Constitution, p. 85).

Limitations: As may be provided by law

Valmonte v
Belmonte
1989

Baldoza v
Dimaano
1976
Legaspi v
Civil Service
Commission
1987
Chavez v
PCGG
1998

The people have a right to access official records but they cant
compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts,
summaries and the like, such not being based on a demandable
legal right.
Then right to privacy belongs to the individual and must be
invoked by the individual. A public agency like the GSIS cannot
invoke the right to privacy.
Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge
may regulate the manner in which persons desiring to inspect,
examine or copy records in his office, may exercise their rights.
Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to
information on matters of public concern.
What matters constitute public concern should be determined
by the court on a case to case basis.
Public concern (def.) writings coming into the hands of public
officers in connection with their official functions
Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.

Echegaray
case

Privileged communication: (1) national security, (2) trade secrets,

(3) criminal matters pending in court,
SC held that making the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to
the convict was unconstitutional.

S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of Speech at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright
consummate flower of all liberty. (Wendell Philips)
Scope

Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for the

discussion of matters affecting the public interest. Purely private interest
matters do not come within the guaranty (invasion of privacy is not
sanctioned by the Constitution).
covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox view.
(One of the functions of this freedom is to invite dispute US Supreme
Court; I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it. - Voltaire)
The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was meant
not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to benefit the
majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)

Importance
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas that the best
test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of
the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be
carried out.
Modes of Expression
(a) Oral and written language
(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)
Elements of Freedom of Expression
(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship

Section 4, Art. III. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.

Censorship conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon the prior approval
of the government. Only those ideas acceptable to it are allowed to be disseminated.

Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually applying
his own subjective standards in determining the good and the not. Such is
anathema in a free society.

In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition of prior
restraint is not absolute, although any system of prior restraint comes to
court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.

In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of prior restraint is

enumerated by the Court, thus: When a nation is at war, many things that
might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort .... No one
would question but that government might prevent actual obstruction to its
recruiting service or the publication of sailing dates of transports or the
number or location of troops.... The security of the community life may be
protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force
of orderly government.

In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act says that
surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days
before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be
published seven days before an election. The provision is challenged as
violative of freedom of expression. The Court held that as prior restraint, the
rule is presumed to be invalid. The power of the Comelec over media
franchises is limited to ensuring equal opportunity, time, space and the right
to reply as well as to reasonable rates of charges for the use of media
facilities for public information and forums among candidates. Here the
prohibition of speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule
pass the O'Brien test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses
one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials, etc. and
(2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect government
interest because the interest can be protected by narrower restriction such as
subsequent punishment.

In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the Court held that
the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on
the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its
proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial... With the possibility of
losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused, it
behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict
solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment...

The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the protection
of core speech, i.e., speech which communicates political, social or religious
ideas. Commercial speech, however, does not.

Grosjean vs
American Press
Co.
Burgos vs Chief
of Staff
Mutuc
COMELEC

vs

Sanidad vs
COMELEC

But...
Gonzales vs
COMELEC

Iglesia ni Cristo
vs CA

Primicias vs
Fugosos
National Press
Club
vs
COMELEC

Osmea vs
COMELEC

There need not be total suppression; even restriction of

circulation constitutes censorship
the search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of Metropolitan
Mail and We Forum by military authorities, resulting in the
discontinuance of publication of the newspapers, was held to be
prior restraint
the COMELEC prohibition against the use of taped jingles in the
mobile units used in the campaign was held to be
unconstitutional, as it was in the nature of censorship
the Court annulled the COMELEC prohibition against radio
commentators or newspaper columnists from commenting on
the issues involved in the scheduled plebiscite on the organic
law creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on freedom of expression
the Court upheld the validity of the law which prohibited, except
during the prescribed election period, the making of speeches,
announcements or commentaries for or against the election of
any party or candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate preoccupation of the people with
politics tended toward the neglect of the other serious needs of
the nation and the pollution of its suffrages.
The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT)
has the authority to review the petitioner's television program.
However, the Board acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
gave an X-rating to the TV program on the ground of attacks
against another religion. Such a classification can be justified
only if there is a showing that the tv program would create a
clear and present danger of an evil which the State ought to
prevent.
The respondent mayor could only reasonably regulate, not
absolutely prohibit, the use of public places for the purpose
indicated.
the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646,
which prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or
to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
other political purposes except to the COMELEC. This was held to
be within the power of the COMELEC to supervise the enjoyment
or utilization of franchises for the operation of media of
communication and information, for the purpose of ensuring
equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, as
well as uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of
such media facilities.
SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646 as a legitimate exercise of
police power. The regulation is unrelated to the suppression of
speech, as any restriction on freedom of expression occasioned
thereby is only incidental and no more than is necessary to
achieve the purpose of promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent with the ruling in PPI vs COMELEC,

Adiong vs
COMELEC

Gonzales vs
katigbak

because in the latter, SC simply said that COMELEC cannot

procure print space without paying just compensation.
COMELEC's resolution prohibiting the posting of decals, and
stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles was
declared unconstitutional for infringmenet of freedom of
expression.
Besides, the constitutional objective of giving the rich and poor
candidates' equal opportunity to inform the electorate is not
violated by the posting of decals and stickers on cars and other
vehicles.
Overbreadth doctrine = prohibits the government from
achieving its purpose by means that weep unnecessarily
broadly, reaching constitutionally protected as well as
unprotected activity; the government has gone too far; its
legitimate interest can be satisfied without reaching so broadly
into the area of protected freedom.
petitioner questioned the classification of the movie as for
adults only. the petition was dismissed because the Board did
not commit grave abuse of discretion.

Freedom From Subsequent Punishment

Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.

Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear that he
might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be provoking the
vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.

Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom of

expression does not cover ideas offensive to public order)

Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute

General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of
articles he has written
Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial
disorder or invasion of rights of others, the school has the right to discipline its
students (in such a case, it may expel or suspend the student)
Tests of valid governmental interference
(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed by him) :
1. Clear and present danger rule
2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
3. Balance of interest test

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 bring about the
substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. (As formulated by Justice
Holmes in Schenck v. United States)
Clear causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the
utterance
Present time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger must not only
be probable but also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec)

In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned exit polls in the exercise of its
authority to regulate the holders of media franchises during the lection period.
It contends that an exit poll has the tendency to sow confusion considering
the randomness of selecting interviewees.... However, the Court said that exit
polls constitute an essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press.
Hence, the Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of promoting clean,
honest, orderly and credible elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and
present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely speculative.

Terminiello vs City of Chicago

Primicias vs Fugosos

Navarro vs Villegas

Reyes vs Bagatsing

(speech inside an auditorium with 800

persons)

speech
is
often
provocative
and
challenging. hence, fighting words are not
sufficient to convict a person absent a clear
and present danger of a serious substantive
evil
The respondent mayor could only reasonably
regulate, not absolutely prohibit, the use of public
places for the purpose indicated.

the condition of Manila at that time did

not justify the mayor's fears. there was no
clear and present danger.

decided in 1947
(compare with Primicias case)
SC sustained respondent mayor's act of refusing
to issue a permit enabling students to hold a
public rally. Mayor feared the rally would result to
public disorder.
- decided in 1970
the denial of a permit to hold a public rally was
invalid as there was no showing of the probability
of a clear and present danger of an evil that
might arise as a result of the meeting. The
burden of proving such eventually rests on the
Mayor.

2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency

of an evil which the State has the right to prevent.(Cabansag v. Fernandez)

Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. If

believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or some failure
of energy stifles the movement at its birth.

Bayan vs Executive Secretary

Ermita
Cabansag vs Fernandez

People vs Perez

(a)

the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response

Policy is null and void. Respondents are
enjoined from using it and to strictly observe
the requirements of maximum tolerance.
It is not necessary that some definite or
immediate acts of force or violence be advocated.
It is sufficient that such acts be advocated in
general terms.
A mere tendency toward the evil was enough.
Accused declared: The Filipinos like myself must
use bolos for cutting off (Governor-General)
Wood's head for having recommended a bad
thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our
independence.
He was sentenced to jail.

3. Balance of Interest Test when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of

public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment
of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests
demands the greater protection under the circumstances presented. (American
Communications Association v. Douds)

CLEAR AND PRESENT

DANGER RULE

DANGEROUS TENDENCY
RULE

BALANCE OF INTEREST
RULE

liberty is preferred

Authority is preferred

the issue is resolved in the

light of the peculiar
circumstances obtaining in
each particular case

In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all the more
the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of
information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.

When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression) to speak &
freedom to know (to information) are invoked against (vs.) maintaining free and clean
elections- the police, local officials and COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the States power to
regulate are NOT ANTAGONISTIC.
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain them, the
freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.

We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation of election

campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if:
It is too general in its terms
Not limited in time and scope in its application
It if restricts ones expression of belief in a candidate or ones opinion of his or
her qualifications,
If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the
constitutionally sanctioned objective.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and,
by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be
furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed in his
private vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own
and not of anybody else.

The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or defamatory is:

Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory material is a
public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against them and not be considered
libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked for it (they voluntarily thrust themselves
into the public eye and therefore should not be thin-skinned); 2) its a matter of
public interest; and 3) public figures have the opportunity and resources to rebut
whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); ( New York Times vs
Sullivan)

In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected under the
freedom of speech in publishing paid advertisement, no matter if it contained
erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was not commercial in the
sense that it communicated information, expressed opinion, recited
grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought a financial support on
behalf of a movement. That the Times was paid for publishing the
advertisement is as immaterial as the fact that newspapers and books are
sold.

Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech freedom just
because they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise, newspapers will be
discouraged from carrying editorial advertisements and so might shut off an
important outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not
themselves have access to publishing facilities.
On errors: Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing;
and in no instance is this truer than that of the press. Erroneous statement is
inevitable in free debate.
Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection
merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.

Presence of clear and present danger of substantive evil must be proved. Actual
Malice needs to be proved if a public official wants to recover damages for a
defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct. Even a false statement may be
deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about the
clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with
error.

In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as For Adults

Only by the MTRCB and was suggested to have certain portions cut/ deleted.

Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The power of the
MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of permissible
exercise of free speech and, therefore should be censored, is the clear and present
danger test.
Assembly and Petition

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. However, the right must be exercised in such a way
that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals)

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 prohibition. (Primicias v. Fugoso)

Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held in: a

private place; the campus of a government-owned or operated educational
institution; and freedom park. (B.P. Blg. 880 - The Public Assembly Act of
1985')

In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit from the City of
Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2-5pm from Luneta to gates
of US Embassy, and was denied by the Mayor due to Vienna Convention
Ordinance and fear of subversives may infiltrate the ranks of the
demonstrators.

Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will prevail over
Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven because 500m not measured
from gate to US Embassy proper) and fear of serious injury cannot alone justify
suppression of free speech and assembly- only clear and present danger of
substantive evil.
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to
free speech and peaceful assembly
Tanada vs
Bagatsing

SC sustained the petitioner's motion compelling the mayor of

Manila to issue a permit to hold a rally, but changed the meeting
place to Ugarte Field, a private park

Malabanan vs
Ramento

Villar vs TIP

Non vs Dames

PBM Employees
Assoc vs PBM

(several students were suspended for 1 year for conducting

demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area
permitted by the school authorities)
SC emphasized that the students did not shed their
constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate, and
permitted the students to re-enroll and finish their studies.
(several students were barred from re-enrollment for
participating in demonstrations)
while the Court upheld the academic freedom of institutions of
higher learning, which includes the right to set academic
standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades
suffice for expulsion of students, it was held that this right
cannot be utilized to discriminate against those who exercise
their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz vs PSBA (that enrolment of a
student is a semester-to-semester contract and the school may
not be compelled to renew the contract) upholding the primacy
of freedom of expression, because the students do not shed
theur constitutionally protected rights at the school gate.
right to free assembly and petition prevails over economic rights.

Tests of a lawful assembly

(1) Purpose Test

ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held,
regardless of the auspices under which it is organized

(2) Auspices Test

Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the members of

the Communist Party from holding any kind of meeting, revoking all
permits previously granted by him on the ground that the party had been
found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association.

In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint letters via
counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who charged them with
libel.

Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted,

Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize
judicial conduct. And these people did so in proper channels without undue publicity,
believing they were right.
Right of Association

Section 8, Art. III. 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.

The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of expression because the

organization can be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a bearing
on public welfare.
SSS Employees
Assoc vs CA
Victoriano vs
Elizalde Rope
Workers' Union
Occena vs
COMELEC
In re Edillon

right to organize does not carry with it right to strike

right of association was not violated where political parties were

prohibited from participating in the barangay elections to insure
the non-partisanship of the candidates.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any
group of which he is not already a member.

T. OBSCENITY CASES
US vs Kottinger

People vs Go Pin

Pita vs CA
Miller vs California

SC acquitted accused who was charged of having

offered for sale pictures of half-clad members of nonChristian tribes, holding that he had only presented
them in their native attire
Accused was convicted for exhibiting nude paintings
and pictures, notwithstanding his claim that he had
done so in the interest of art. SC, noting that he has
charged admission fees to the exhibition, held that
his purpose was commercial, not merely artistic.
SC declared that the determination of what is
obscene is a judicial function.
Test of Obscenity:
whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, would
find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest
whether the work depicts, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable law
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value
Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not think we, the
judges, were ever given the constitutional power to
make definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is a

hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of the
community in which the material is being tested.

In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect minors from

obscenity on the internet.

Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional.

Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by

the First Amendment.

The internet is not an invasive medium because it requires a series of affirmative

steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial (tv or radio).
There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is
accessing material through email, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms.
The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any communication
available to a nationwide audience will be judged by the standards of the community
most likely to be offended by the message.
The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for being indecent or patently
offensive the remaining content even if not indecent cannot be viewed anymore.
Imposition of requirements (adult identification number or credit card) would bar
adults who do not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from
accessing any blocked material. It burdens communication among adults.
The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based blanket
restriction on speech, and as such, cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time,
place and manner regulation.

The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The scope had been
limited to material displayed only on the world wide web. Chat and email
were not included. The classification of content was limited as harmful to
minors using the Miller V California Test. So, it was upheld by the Supreme
Court.

Notes: the Courts Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publishers responsibility to

abide by that communitys standards.
The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be subjected to varying
community standards in the various federal judicial districts into which they transmit
the materials does not render a federal statute unconstitutional.
- Criticism of Official Conduct
Lagunzad vs Sotto Vda. de
the Court granted the petition to restrain the public
Gonzales
exhibition of the movie Moises Padilla Story,
because it contained fictionalized embellishments.
Being a public figure does not destroy one's right to

Ayer Productions vs Judge

Capulong

US vs Bustos
People vs Alarcon

In re Jurado

In re Sotto

In re Tulfo

In re Laureta

Zaldivar vs Sandiganbayan

U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

privacy.
the tribunal upheld the primacy of freedom of
expression over Enrile's right to privacy, because
Enrile was a public figure and a public figure's right
to privacy is narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen. Besides, the movie Four Days of Revolution
(sabi ni Cruz) / A Dangerous Life (sabi ni
Nachura) / The Four Day Revolution (sabi sa case)
would not be historically faithful without including
therein the participation of Enrile in the EDSA
revolution.
SC compared criticism of official conduct to a scalpel
that relieves the abscesses of officialdom
newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct,
embarrass or influence the courts in administering
justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitutes
criminal contempt which is summarily punishable by
the courts.
a publication that tends to impede, embarrass or
obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and
present danger to the administration of justice is not
protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is
punishable by contempt.
It is not necessary that publication actually obstructs
the administration of justice, it is enough that it
tends to do so.
a senator was punished for contempt for having
attacked a decision of SC which he called
incompetent and narrow-minded, and announcing
that he would file a bill for its reorganization
Tulfo's Sangkatutak na Bobo column was held
contumacious. Freedom of the press is subordinate to
the decision, authority and integrity of the judiciary
and the proper administration of justice.
a lawyer was held in contempt and suspended from
the practice of law for wrting individual letters to
members of the SC division that decided a case
against his client, arrogantly questioning their
decision
a member of the Bar who imputed charges of
improper influence, corruption and other misdeeds to
members of the Supreme Court was suspended from
the practice of law as neither the right of free
speech nor the right to engage in political activities
can be so construed or extended as to permit any
such liberties to a member of the bar.

Section 5, Art. III. 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.
Religion defined

any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of
ethics and philosophy (defined by Cruz)

In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as a profession of faith to an active

power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.

Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution

(1) Non-establishment clause
(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
1. Non-establishment Clause

reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State

other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no
sectoral representative from the religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art. VI
[prohibition against the use of public money or property for the benefit of any
religion, or of any priest, minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
[exemption from taxation of properties actually, directly and exclusively used
for religious purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship requirement of ownership
of educational institutions except those owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2),
Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is employed in the armed
forces, penal institution or government-owned orphanage or leprosarium]

Scope: The State

(a) cannot set up a church;
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over
another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his
will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Rationale:

to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and

to avoid encroachment by one against the other.

A union of Church and State would either:

tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or
result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength

separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility

The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and disparages
none.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to worship

includes right not to worship

Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment clause:

(1) Voluntarism the growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from
the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual
and secular society will benefit if religions are allowed to compete on their
own intrinsic merit without benefit of official patronage.
(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension voluntarism
cannot be achieved unless the political process is insulated from religion and
unless religion is insulated politics.
Engel vs Vitale

recitation by students in public schools in New York of a

prayer composed by the Board of Regents was
unconstitutional
Everson vs Board US Supreme Court sustained the law providing free
of Education
transportation for all schoolchildren without discrimination,
including those attending parochial schools
Board of Education US Supreme Court sustained the law requiring the petitioner
vs Allen
to lend textbooks free of charge to all students from grades
7-12, including those attending private schools
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the student and
parents, not to the church-related school
Adong vs Cheong in line with the constitutional principle of equal treatment of
Seng Gee
all religions, the State recognizes the validity of marriages
performed in conformity with the rites of Mohammedan
religion
Rubi vs Provincial the expression non-Christian in non-Christian tribes was
Board
not meant to discriminate. It refers to degree of civilization,
not to the religious belief.
Islamic
Da'wah by arrogating to itself the task of issuing halal certifications,
Council
of
the the State has, in effect, forced Muslims to accept its own
Philippines
vs interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunna on halal food.
Office of Exec. Sec.

Intramural Religious Dispute outside the jurisdiction of the secular

authorities
Gonzales vs
where a civil right depends upon some matter pertaining to
Archbishop of
ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the civil right and
Manila
nothing more.
Fonacier v CA
where the dispute involves the property rights of the
religious group, or the relations of the members where the
property rights are involved, the civil courtws may assume
jurisdiction.
2. Free Exercise Clause
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause:
1. Freedom to Believe
(a) absolute
(b) includes not to believe
(c) everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account
because he cannot prove what he believes
2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
(b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to rights of
others
(c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious freedom
terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its essence is
freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to
law because of religious dogma
German vs Barangan

Ebralinag
vs
division
Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu

People vs Zosa
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope
Workers Union
American Bible Society vs City

SC found that petitioners were not sincere in

their profession of religious liberty and were
using it merely to express their opposition to
the government
SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of Educ. , and
upheld the right of petitioners to refute to salute
the Philippine flag on account of their religious
scruples. To compel students to take part in a
flag ceremony when it is against their religious
beliefs will violate their religious freedom.
invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid
military service was brushed aside by the SC
SC upheld the validity of RA 3350, exempting
members of a religious sect from being
compelled to join a labor union
the constitutional guarantee of free exercise

of Manila

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance

carries with it the right to disseminate

information, and any restraint of such right can
be justified only on the ground that there is a
clear and present danger of an evil which the
State has the right to prevent;
Hence, City ordinance imposing license fees to
on sale is inapplicable to the society
the free exercise clause does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and use
tax on the sale of religious materials;
the registration fee is not imposed for the
exerise of a privilege, but only for the purpose
of defraying part of the cost of registration

Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]

the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu a
benevolent neutrality (which 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

benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on

religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test.

two steps (as regards the test):

inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has
been burdened; and
ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief.

In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations for religious

purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is not included in
solicitations for charitable or public welfare purposes.

Religious Tests

Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a person from

exercising his civil of political rights because of his religious beliefs.

In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is questioned

whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of the Constitution.
Said Code disqualifies an ecclesiastic from being elected or appointed to a
municipal office. Seven Justices voted to consider this a prohibited religious
test. Five justices said it is not a religious test but a safeguard against the
constant threat of union of Church and State that has marked the Philippine
history. (Hence, since the majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution
to nullify a statute was not reached, the disqualification remains enforceable.)

People vs Zosa

invocation of religious scruples in order to avoid military

service was brushed aside by the SC

V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Section 6, Art. III. 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.

Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III

1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside
Limitations
Liberty of Abode upon lawful order of the court
Right to Travel national security, public safety or public health as may be
provided by law
Caunca vs Salazar
82 Phil 851

Rubi vs Provincial
Board of Mindoro
1919
Villavicencio
Lukban
1919

vs

Salonga
vs
Hermoso
97 SCRA 121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of
Health
1927
Manotok vs CA
1986

Marcos

vs

Whether a maid had the right to transfer to another

residence even if she had not paid yet the amount advances
by an employment agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by
controlling a fundamental human freedom.
Human dignity and freedom are essentially spiritual
inseparable from the idea of eternal. Money, power, etc.
belong to the ephemeral and perishable.
The respondents were justified in requiring the members of
certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for
their better education, advancement and protection. The
measure was a legitimate exercise of police power.
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels
but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional
guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled
to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing
such.
the case became moot and academic when the permit to
travel abroad was issued before the case could be heard.
Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the
world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such
segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the
right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on
an accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines
where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding
force.
The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right

Manglapus
1989
Philippine
Association
of
Service Exporters
vs Drilon
1988

to leave, reside and travel within ones country but it does

not include the right to return to ones country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a
precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national
security, public health or public order, as may be provided by
law.
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas
workers is constitutional for having been issued in the
interest of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor
Code.