philmariner1052

writ of kalikasan (discovery measures)

- no bail/arraignment

precautionary principle (BT talong)

custody and disposition

- no ADR but there is Mediation

-no Pollution Adjudication Board

SLAPP

- no trial/pre trial

(marine mammals ask ayka capacity to sue)

For essay: Rules on environmental procedure

Mga possible and sure lalabas:

Jurisdiction ng illegal gotten timber/logs (DENR/CENRO)

Precautionary Principle

Effects of deforestation (maybe)

Book oposa vs factoran/syllabus

Citizen suit (maybe)

GR no. 189185- mosqueda vs pilipino banana growers

Save comp

ECC(Environmental Compliance Certificate) & EIS(Environmental Impact Statement)

Projects that pose potential significant impact to the environment shall be required to secure
Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs).

An ECC is a document issued by DENR/EMB after a positive review of the ECC application, certifying that
based on the representations of the proponent, the proposed project or undertaking will not cause
significant negative environmental impact.
The ECC contains specific measures and conditions that the project proponent has to undertake before
and during the operation of the project, and in some cases, during the projects abandonment phase to
mitigate identified environmental impacts.

The ECC also certifies that the proponent has complied with all the requirements of the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) System and has committed to implement its approved Environmental
Management Plan.

Screening for Coverage of the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System

Proponent may submit a letter of request to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) or its
regional offices in order to determine if the proposed project is covered by the EIS System. Attached to
the letter is the Project Description, which includes raw materials, process or manufacturing technology,
project capacity, type and volume of products and discharges, capitalization, project area, manpower
requirements and location map.

Projects that have no significant environment impact shall not be required to secure ECC.

In cases a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) is to be secured for the perusal of other government
agencies and/or organizations, the above-mentioned requirements may be submitted to the EMB or its
Regional Offices.

The CNC is issued by the EMB certifying that, based on the submitted project description, the project is
not covered by the EIS system and is not required to secure an ECC.

What Is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?

An EIS is a document that describes the impacts on the environment as a result of a proposed action.

Purpose of an EIS

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a document prepared to describe the effects for proposed
activities on the environment. "Environment," in this case, is defined as the natural and physical
environment and the relationship of people with that environment. This means that the "environment"
considered in an EIS includes land, water, air, structures, living organisms, environmental values at the
site, and the social, cultural, and economic aspects. An "impact" is a change in consequence that results
from an activity. Impacts can be positive or negative or both. An EIS describes impacts, as well as ways
to "mitigate" impacts. To "mitigate" means to lessen or remove negative impacts.

Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, is a document that describes the impacts on the
environment as a result of a proposed action. It also describes impacts of alternatives as well as plans to
mitigate the impacts.

EIS Requirements
Federal laws and regulations require the federal government to evaluate the effects of its actions on the
environment and to consider alternative courses of action. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) specifies when an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared. NEPA
regulations require, among other things, federal agencies to include discussion of a proposed action and
the range of reasonable alternatives in an EIS. Sufficient information must be included in the EIS for
reviewers to evaluate the relative merits of each alternative. Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations provide the recommended format and content of Environmental Impact Statements.

From 1C: Tanda ko mdami sa revised forestry code and ung jurisdiction ng DENR, courts and LGU sa
environmental law

Benham Rise

From now on, Benham Rise will be known as Philippine Rise.

President Duterte, through Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, signed last week an executive order
(EO) changing the name of Benham Rise, a resource-rich submerged landmass off the eastern coast of
the Philippines, to Philippine Rise.

Benham Rise became controversial early this year after Mr. Duterte admitted that he had allowed China
to send ships to the 24-million-hectare undersea feature, which the United Nations has declared part of
the Philippine continental shelf.

ADVERTISEMENT

Following the controversy, the President announced plans to rename Benham Rise to emphasize
Philippine sovereign right and jurisdiction over the area.

In Executive Order No. 25, dated May 16, Mr. Duterte said the country could rename Benham Rise in its
exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction.

The country has sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Benham Rise region in accordance with the
1987 Constitution, national legislation, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos)
and applicable international laws, according to EO 25.

The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ruled in 2012 that Benham Rise was part of
the countrys extended continental shelf and thus the country could explore, exploit, conserve and
manage natural resources there.

Under the 1982 Unclos, a coastal states exclusive economic zone extends 370 kilometers from its
continental shelf, while its extended continental shelf extends for another 278 km.

Namria maps
EO 25 said Philippine Rise would now be the name that would appear on maps and charts produced by
the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (Namria).

It directed the Department of Foreign Affairs to notify concerned international organizations on the new
name of the submerged landmass.

Government agencies were also directed to use Philippine Rise in official documents.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kalipungawan

The landmass, the shallowest part of which is 50 meters, is a rich fishing ground for fishermen from
Aurora, Quezon, and the Bicol provinces. It is called Kalipungawan (loneliness) by fishermen from
Catanduanes, who can reach the area after a 12-hour boat ride.

Bigger than Luzon, Philippine Rise extends eastward off the provinces of Aurora and Isabela, and the
Bicol region. The extended continental shelf in Philippine Rise has an area of 135,506 sq km (13.5 million
hectares), equivalent to about half of the countrys land area.

Cosalan

BAGUIO CITY The city government on Feb. 3 filed its answer to the allegations lodged in the Writ of
Kalikasan filed by petitioners led by Benguet Rep. Ronald Cosalan over the continued use of the Irisan
dumpsite.

The Supreme Court last January 17 granted said writ and issued Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO) to stop the use of Irisan dumpsite as dumping area and as temporary holding or staging
point for wastes.

In the 33-page answer prepared by the city legal office under officer-in-charge Melchor Carlos Rabanes,
the city replied point by point to the allegations raised by the petitioners.

In the answer, the city elucidated on the actions it undertook to ensure the proper use of the dumpsite
in compliance with environmental laws and the Republic Act No. 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000 and Republic Act No. 9275 or the Clean Water Act of 2004.

The answer also discussed and justified the actions made by the city government in ensuring the safety
and stability of the dump facility.

It also maintained that the city has stopped using the facility for dumping since 2008 and countered such
other claims posed by the petitioners.

In the answer, the city asked the court to dismiss the case and lift or dissolve the Writ and the TEPO
issued earlier.
The city also asked to be allowed "to fully complete the process of making Irisan dumpsite as an eco-
park in accordance with R.A. 9003 and other environmental laws" and sought P10 million in moral
damages and whatever amount the court may decide for exemplary damages.

As this developed, Mayor Mauricio Domogan bemoaned his inclusion as a private person in the suit
saying he still cannot fathom why he was sued on his personal capacity over an issue that he has

Oilspill

The oil tanker M/T Solar 1, carrying more than two million liters of bunker fuel, sank during a violent
storm approximately 20.5 kilometres (12.7 mi) off the southern coast of Guimaras at around midnight
on August 11, 2006,[4] causing some 500,000 litres (110,000 imp gal; 130,000 US gal) of oil to pour into
the gulf, that traveled up through the Guimaras Strait and Iloilo Strait. Siphoning the remaining 1.5
million liters from the sunken tanker, at a depth of more than 600 metres (2,000 ft), was scheduled for
March 2007.

The oil spill adversely affected marine sanctuaries and mangrove reserves in three out of five
municipalities in Guimaras Island and reached the shores of Iloilo and Negros Occidental. The oil spill
occurred in the Guimaras Strait that connects the Visayan Sea with the Sulu Sea, and is considered a rich
fishing ground that supplies most of the demand for the entire country. (NDCC, August 2006)

Haribon sent two biologists to Guimaras to assess the damage and talk to the affected communities
regarding their immediate needs. Haribon provided assistance particularly for the long-term
rehabilitation of the area. The government evacuated the affected families who had been exposed to
the toxic elements of the crude oil. According to reports gathered in the field, people contracted skin
diseases associated with these elements.

Pointers in BLE pero aralin niyo na rin lahat para sa deptals:

1. Until canon 15 lang ang essay.

2. Focus on conflict of interest and grounds for disbarment.

3. Merong true or false (baka in essay format); wala DAW ipapadefine.

4. Read rules 138 to 139, and QUAMTO specially year 2014 for deptals.

5. Yung duties of an attorney di ko nahagilap kung meron ba or wala. Kindly comment nalang here kung
ano nasagap niyo kay Judge Diaz about it.
Citizenship (rule and exercise to right of suffrage)

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law,
who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the
election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of
suffrage.

Golden notes

Equipoise rule

Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds
application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then
the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction.
Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found
lacking. And in this case, the petitioner must be declared innocent and set free

Golden notes

Miranda rights (when invoked)

Right of suspects custodial investigation

Golden notes

Good samaritan case - access to courts

Free access to courts give free assistance to counsel

Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are,
or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended
to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury
or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a good Samaritan
doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from
being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a
stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.[2] By
contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance, and holds those who fail to do so
liable.

Golden notes page 139

Edillon case
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The
IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its
Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of
Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense
that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled
financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally antagonistic, he is being
deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the
respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no
legal force and effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.

HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers
are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his
annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated
Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the States legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require thet the cost of the regulatory
program the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice law
before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if the
power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce its
payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters
of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the Integrated
Bar to pay their annual dues.

Golden notes

Ang Ladlad case

Golden notes page 134

Freedom of religion (can it be invoked in school setting? Yes)

Golden notes FOR not clear and present danger page 134
Who can file expropriation case, how (check objectives of agency)

Golden notes page 88

Non establishment clause (IBP VS ATIENZA)

No. In modifying a rally permit or in granting a rally permit which contains a time and place different
from that applied for, the mayor must first consult with the applicant at the earliest opportunity. This is
in order to give the applicant some time to determine if such change is favorable to him or adverse (and
if adverse, he can seek judicial remedies) Section 6 of the Public Assembly Act.

It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be
the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave
danger of a substantive evil, the applicant must be heard on the matter. In this case, Atienza did not
consult with the IBP. Atienza capriciously and whimsically changed the venue without any reason
therefor. Such is a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of the freedom of expression.

Golden notes page 130

equal protection clause (vicas vs monetary board)

save comp

Concept of double taxation

Golden notes page 94

Classification of heinous crimes

Golden notes page 160

Disini vs SOJ

FACTS

Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal code and, in effect, the libel provisions of the
cybercrime law carry with them the requirement of presumed malice even when the latest
jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher standard of actual malice as a basis for conviction.
Petitioners argue that inferring presumed malice from the accuseds defamatory statement by virtue
of Article 354 of the penal code infringes on his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

ISSUE

Whether or not Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyberlibel affected the requirement
of actual malice as opposed to presumed malice as basis for conviction of libel.
RULING

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the presence of actual malice in instances where such
element is required to establish guilt. The defense of absence of actual malice, even when the statement
turns out to be false, is available where the offended party is a public official or a public figure, as in the
cases of Vasquez (a barangay official) and Borjal (the Executive Director, First National Conference on
Land Transportation). Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime law, mainly target libel against
private persons, the Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter standard of malice to convict the
author of a defamatory statement where the offended party is a public figure. Societys interest and the
maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs.

But, where the offended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence of
malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory character of the
assailed statement. For his defense, the accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for the
defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.

Plagiarism in re UP

Golden notes freedom of expression not absolute court legal system malicious allowed constructive
criticism 120

Harvey vs Santiago

Facts:

Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three
months close surveillance by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) agents in
Pagsanjan Laguna. Two days after apprehension 17 opted for self deportation, one released for lack of
evidenced, one was charged by another offense, working without a valid working visa. Thus, three was
left to face the deportation proceedings.

Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected
child prostitute shown in salacious poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sexual act. There were
also posters and other literatures advertising the child prostitution.

Warrant of arrest was issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of Sec. 37, 45 and 46
of the Immigration act and sec. 69 of the revised administrative Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the Philippines immigration act clothed the commissioner with any authority to
arrest and detained petitioner pending determination of the existence of a probable cause

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court held that there can be no question that the right against unreasonable search
and seizure is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not.

One of the constitutional requirement of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it
must be based upon probable cause.

The arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for
three (3) months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause
justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant.
Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence.

But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid at its inception, the
records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as undesirable aliens.

That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were
found with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John Sherman being naked. Under those
circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed
"pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual perversion involving children"

City of manila vs tan te

Socialized housing falls within the confines of public use

The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7951, an ordinance authorising the mayor to acquire by
negotiation or expropriation pieces of real property along Maria Clara and Forbes Streets where low-
cost housing could be built and awarded to bona-fide residents therein. One of those included was the
property of Melba, 475-square meter property included within the 1,425 sq. meter covered property.
Melba acquired the property from one Emerlinda in 1996, and it was already occupied by several
families whose leasehold rights have already expired. Melba was able to secure a writ of execution from
the MTC of Manila, but it remained unexexcuted, as it was opposed by the city. Between the time an
order of execution and a writ of demolition were issued, the city filed an expropriation complaint
against the property. The RTC dismissed the first compliant upon motion by Melba for failure to show
that an ordinance authorised the expropriation and non-compliance with the provisions of Republic Act
7279.

The city filed a second expropriation complaint, this time armed with Ordinance No. 7951, and alleging
that pursuant thereto, it had already offered to buy the property from Melba, which the latter failed to
retrieve from the post office despite notice. The city was thereby compelled to file the complaint, after
depositing in trust with the Land Bank of the Philippines P1,000,000.00 in cash, representing the just
compensation required by law.

Melba, instead of filing, filed a motion to dismiss, and raised the following grounds: Ordinance No. 7951
was an invalid ordinance because it violated a rule against taking private property without just
compensation; that petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No.
7279; and that she qualified as a small property owner and, hence, exempt from the operation of R.A.
No. 7279, the subject lot being the only piece of realty that she owned.

The city then moved to be allowed to enter the proper, but the RTC dismissed the complaint filed by the
city in this wise: First, the trial court held that while petitioner had deposited with the bank the alleged
P1M cash in trust for respondent, petitioner nevertheless did not submit any certification from the City
Treasurers Office of the amount needed to justly compensate respondent for her property. Second, it
emphasized that the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory in character, yet
petitioner had failed to show that it exacted compliance with them prior to the commencement of this
suit. Lastly, it conceded that respondent had no other real property except the subject lot which,
considering its total area, should well be considered a small property exempted by law from
expropriation.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals by the city, the appellate court denied the appeal, hence the city of
Manila elevated its case to the Supreme Court. In its petition, the city avers that the dismissal denied it
the opportunity to show compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279; Melba had other properties
aside from the subject property. Whether or not it had complied with the law is a matter best treated in
a full-blown trial rather than in a motion to dismiss. Melba on the other hand countered that Ordinance
7951 is an invalid ordinance; expropriation for socialized housing must abide by the priorities in land
acquisition and the available modes of land acquisition laid out in the law, and that expropriation of
privately-owned lands avails only as the last resort. She also invokes the exemptions provided in the law.
She professes herself to be a small property owner under Section 3 (q), and claims that the subject
property is the only piece of land she owns where she, as of yet, has not been able to build her own
home because it is still detained by illegal occupants whom she had already successfully battled with in
the ejectment court. Replying, the city averred that by virtue of its power of eminent domain included in
its charter, it is not bound by the provisions of Republic Act 7279.

The Supreme Court:

The public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and
evolving concept influenced by changing conditions.

The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time where it was felt that a literal meaning
should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to
enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not anymore. As
long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. x x x The
constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the
expropriation of lands to be divided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the
transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other enterprise to the government. It is
accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
satisfies the requirement of public use.
The term public use has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal import of the term
signifying strict use or employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public
benefit or advantage. x x x

The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation which circumscribes the scope of
government activities and public concerns and which possesses big and correctly located public lands
that obviate the need to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to the
Philippines. We have never been a laissez-faire state. And the necessities which impel the exertion of
sovereign power are all too often found in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources.

Specifically, urban renewal or development and the construction of low-cost housing are recognized as a
public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific
provisions in the Constitution. x x x The 1987 Constitution [provides]:

The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for
all. (Article II, Section 9)

The State shall, by law and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a
continuing program for urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost
decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and
resettlement areas. x xx In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of
small property owners. (Article XIII, Section 9)

Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and
significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public
character of housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot be occupied by
all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. A beginning has to be made, for it is not
possible to provide housing for all who need it, all at once.

Population growth, the migration to urban areas and the mushrooming of crowded makeshift dwellings
is a worldwide development particularly in developing countries. So basic and urgent are housing
problems that the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the International Year of
Shelter for the Homeless to focus the attention of the international community on those problems.
The General Assembly is seriously concerned that, despite the efforts of Governments at the national
and local levels and of international organizations, the driving conditions of the majority of the people in
slums and squatter areas and rural settlements, especially in developing countries, continue to
deteriorate in both relative and absolute terms. [G.A. Res. 37/221, Yearbook of the United Nations
1982, Vol. 36, p. 1043-4]
In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that socialized housing falls within the confines of
public use.

Congress passed R.A. No. 7279, to provide a comprehensive and continuing urban development and
housing program as well as access to land and housing by the underprivileged and homeless citizens;
uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban areas by making available
decent housing at affordable cost; optimize the use and productivity of land and urban resources;
reduce urban dysfunctions which affect public health, safety and ecology; and improve the capability of
local governments in undertaking urban development and housing programs and projects, among
others. Accordingly, all city and municipal governments are mandated to inventory all lands and
improvements within their respective locality and identify lands which may be utilized for socialized
housing and as resettlement sites for acquisition and disposition to qualified beneficiaries. Section 10
thereof authorizes local government units to exercise the power of eminent domain to carry out the
objectives of the law, but subject to the conditions stated therein and in Section 9.

Warrantless arrest aspects

Golden notes

Custodial investigation: is the right absolute? It can be waived except right to be informed of those
rights

Ito pala pointers ni atty loanzon sa consti, di naman biya in-assure pero yan daw mga nakita niya tanong
ni gorospe. Though office parin final say.

1st Prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the
free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press,
interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental
redress of grievances.

4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants
based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.

5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due
process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.

6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of
the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.

8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the
Equal Protection Clause, and deals with postCivil War issues.