CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY.

ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

Section 3 (1) THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE EXCEPT
UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

General rule. THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE

Exception. 1.) EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT (first instance)
2.) WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW (second
instance)

The paragraph 2 of section 3 will be the exclusionary rule this is the half of the issue in the case of RP versus
Dimaano and Ramas. The majority opinion says that the evidence that has been confiscated must be return to
Dimaano. In the concurring separate opinion of justice puno says that the evidence seize in the house of Dimaano
must be returned. So in both instances tells that it should be return however the basis or the reasoning is different .
in the same manner that the way of majority opinion and the concurring opinion of justice puno to consider that the
search as invalid and to return the seized property is different from the concurring separate opinion of justice puno.
They arrived at the same result to return it is illegal and it must be return. I hope you saw that. The basis for the
majority opinion saying that Dimaano have the right against the illegal searches and seizure because of united nation
of human rights while Puno the basis for saying his opinion that Dimaano has the right against unreasonable searches
and Seizure because of natural law and in the majority opinion it said that the property seized from dimaano must be
returned because the police officer acted beyond the search warrant. The search warrant only mention that the thing
to be seized is only fire arms but they got 1 million cash, dollars and etc. they are not included in the search warrant
and therefore the majority opinion said that you must returned that. However in the separate opinion of justice puno
he also mentioned that Dimaano is also entitled to the exclusionary rule which is now the second paragraph of Section
3 , puno said that dimaano is entitled to the exclusion of the evidence against him, exclusion of the property seized at
evidence against him because when he filed his answer there is already the freedom constitution, and therefore the
constitution provide for the bill of rights.

(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.

Exclusionary rule is applicable to Section 2 and 3 of the bill of rights. Whatever evidence maybe confiscated or seized
unreasonably must be excluded as evidence and shall be inadmissible for any purpose and any proceeding.
Question. True or False
According to section 3, the privacy of communication and correspondence is absolutely inviolable?
No it is not. It has exception
Exception. 1.) EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT
2.) WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES OTHERWISE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW
Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search. So whatever applicable provision of section 2 is
also applicable to section 3.
What kind of communication and correspondence is cover of this section. It covers letters, messages it also covers
wire taps and other method of electronic tracking .

What is republic act 10175?

- R.A 10175 CYBER CRIME PREVENTION ACT section 12 gives or provide no enforcement of authority shall be
authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means of tracking data in real time associated in the

1 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN
 CONSTI LAW 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (ATTY. ED LARA LECTURE NOTES -CARLA CALOS

specific communications transmitted by means of computer system without court order but not contain nor
identities.

Does section 3 of the Bill of rights allow the intrusion to the privacy of communication and correspondence? YES
It allows under two circumstances or exceptions. What are the conditions for such allowable intrusion? Indi nnaman
pwede lang na by court order, alright by court order, so you are going to file a petition to the court for intrusion into
correspondence and communication.
- Intrusion is allowed upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires it as prescribe by
law . there must be a law that prescribes the exception.
-
But what will be the basis of court in allowing the intrusion of correspondence and communication.
- The court may order intrusion base on the requirement of probable cause. The court may also examine the
application for an intrusion or wire taping. Section 3 is similar to provision on prescribing illegal searches and
seizure that is why you need a probable cause. Wire taps and prohibition on wire taps are similar on searches
and seizure. Intrusion on communication and correspondence is one kind of search.

What is the meaning of exclusionary rule under paragraph 2 of section 3.

- The exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence for any purpose and in any proceeding, the
inadmissibility of the evidence does not mean that it must be returned where it came from, it must be
disposed. If it is a contra band by itself or by its nature then it must be confiscated.
-
In People vs. Marti.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed
only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass
the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.

May evidence unlawfully obtained by private individual come under the exclusionary rule? No.
- That the bill of rights is in effect only if what is involve is against government not to private individuals.

2 EXCLUSIVE FOR INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

NORMA GOYAGOY. EVA ALCARAZ, PATRICIA CHAN, MARLON SAQUING, CARLA CALOS, JANINE URSULUM,
GLENDA GARCIA, SHERIL SAQUING, ATE JOY, EDISON CAUILAN