Constitutional Law II Estrada v Office of the Ombudsman: There is no law requiring the Ombudsman to furnish respondent with the

Midterms counter-affidavits of co-respondents during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case.

--x-- Office of the Ombudsman v Reyes: Rule III on the procedure of administrative cases require the Ombudsman to
POLICE POWER furnish respondent with counter-affidavits of co-respondents.

Aspects/Purposes of Police Power? Why? Because administrative cases can be decided based on pleadings unlike in preliminary investigations of
criminal cases, the only issue is the existence of probable cause before trial could proceed where all those
a. To promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people evidence are available to the respondent.
b. To promote and preserve public health
c. To promote and protect public safety Administrative Due Process:
d. To maintain and safeguard peace and order Ang Tibay v CIR, the requisites are:
e. To protect public morals
f. To promote economic security 1. The right to a hearing (including right to present evidence);
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power 3. The decision must have something to support itself;
a. Lawful Subject: the exercise of police power must be for the interest of the public and not just a 4. The evidence must be substantial;
particular class 5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing;
b. Lawful Means: the means employed for such exercise must be reasonable and necessary and not 6. The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law or facts;
oppressive to individuals 7. The board or body, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to
the proceedings can know the various issues involved
DUE PROCESS
Relevant Cases:
Judicial Due Process:
Lumiqued v Exenea: There is no law, whether the Civil Service Act or the Administrative Code of 1987, which
Español-Filipino v Palanca, the requisites are: provides that a respondent in an administrative case should be assisted by counsel in order that the proceedings
be valid. What is material is that he was given opportunity to be heard.
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the matter
before it; Atty Erece v Macalingay: Right to due process is not violated even if a party to an administrative case was not
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant allowed to cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. What he is entitled to is the right to be heard.
or over the property subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard; Due Process in Disciplinary Actions against Students
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. Guzman v NU, the requisites are:
Relevant Cases: 1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
Delgado v CA: If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the entire trial, his right to due process was 2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel;
violated and therefore, he is entitled to a new trial. 3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
Consulta v People: No violation of right to counsel even if accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the 5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
prosecution’s presentation of evidence as he was later on represented by a lawyer when he presented his designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case
evidence. The defect was cured.
Relevant Cases:
Uyboco v People: A party is bound to his counsel’s negligence and incompetence. It does not entitle him for a new
trial. DLSU v Reyes: The right to due process on the part of a student is not violated even if he was not allowed to
cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. Due process is served if he was given the chance to present his
evidence
Due Process in Dismissal of Employees Under Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, (1) no warrant shall be issued for more than one specific
offense and (2) in the implementation of a search warrant when the respondent is not present, witnesses are
MGG Marine Services v NLRC, the requisites are: required;
1. Notice of intention to dismiss and of grounds for dismissal A Supreme Court circular requires that no warrant or warrant of arrest shall be implemented during the night,
2. Opportunity to be heard and explain his side weekends or holidays, except in exceptional cases.
Relevant Cases: People v Castillo, GR No. 204419: A judge may only issue if the case at hand is within his jurisdiction. Hence, An
Atienza v COMELEC: The affairs of a political party is not within the scope of due process contemplated by law. MTC judge had no jurisdiction in issuing a warrant concerning the violation of RA 9165.
Due process can be invoked only before tribunals created by the State through which governmental acts or What does “personally” mean in Section 2, Article III?
functions are performed. The right to due process guards against unwarranted encroachment by the State into
fundamental rights and cannot be invoked in private controversies involving private rights. It depends.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS Bache v Ruiz: In issuing a search warrant, he must personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, with
searching questions, face to face.
Valid Classification
Soliven v Makasiar: In issuing warrant of arrest, the word personally does not mean that the judge should examine
People v Cayat, the requisites are: the complainant and his witnesses personally or face to face before issuing the warrant of arrest,
1. There must be real and substantial distinctions; but the word personally means that the judge is convinced of the existence of probable cause upon reading the
2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law; affidavits or deposition of the complainant and his witnesses.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only; General Warrants
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
People v CA 291 SCRA 400: What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the
Relevant Cases: warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the
Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission: court issuing the warrant.

Imbong v Ochoa: People v Veloso: John Doe warrants are valid as long as there is a description complete and sufficient to indicate
clearly the person/s upon whom the warrant is to be served.
Disini v Secretary of Justice: A higher penalty for online libel than libel through newspapers does not violate the
equal protection clause because (1) Congress has the prerogative to fix penalties and (2) there is real and Valid Warrantless Arrest
substantial distinction as the offender in online libel evades identification and is able to reach far more victims than Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
the offender in libel can through newspapers. A peace officer or private person, may, without warrant, arrest a person:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

SEARCH AND SEIZURE
b.
Under Section 2, Article III, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizure of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. c.
No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause (1) to be determined personally by
the judge (2) after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and (3) particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;
has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another
Valid Warrantless Search and Seizure RIGHT TO PRIVACY

People v Aruta: Limitations?

a. Customs searches; Section 3, Article III: The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
b. Search of moving vehicle; (1) lawful order of the court, or
c. Seizure of evidence in plain view; (2) when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
d. Consented warrantless searches;
e. Search incidental to a lawful arrest (Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court); Human Security Act / Anti-Terrorism Law (R.A. No. 9372)
f. Stop and frisk measures Sec 7: Upon a written order of the CA, police authorities may wiretap any communication, spoken or written, of
Probable Cause in connection with the issuance of a Search Warrant persons charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

The probable cause for a valid search warrant, has been defined “as such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched”. (Quintero v NBI, June 23, 1988)
This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he
may produce and not based on mere hearsay (People v Sy Juco; US v Addison)
Sec 27 & 28: Upon a written order of the CA, police authorities may examine the bank accounts of persons
charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Sec 26: Persons who have been charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism,
even if they have been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strong,
can be *prohibited from communicating with people outside their residence.

Valid Search Incidental to a Valid Arrest What does it Protect?

Nolasco v Pano: A search incidental to a valid arrest must be done at the place where the accused is arrested or Zulueta v CA: The intimacies of husband and wife do not justify the breaking of cabinets to determine marital
its immediate vicinity or on the person of the accused. It is not valid if the search is done somewhere else. infidelity. It violates the right to privacy.

Plain View Doctrine Disini v Secretary of Justice, G.R. 203335 2/18/14: Individuals have (1) the right to decisional privacy which
involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions and (2) the right to informational privacy
People v Doria, the requisites are: which refers to (a) the right to not have their private information disclosed; and (b) the right to live freely without
surveillance and intrusion.
1. There is a prior valid intrusion wherein police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
2. The contraband is inadvertently discovered (People v Valdez, 341 SCRA 25); and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
3. The contraband is immediately apparent.
Section 4, Article III: No law shall be passed abridging:
Consented Warrantless Searches 1. The freedom speech, of expression, or of the press, or
2. The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
People v Damaso: Consent must come from the person directly affected by the warrantless search and not from
anyone else. Content-based Regulation vs Content-neutral Regulation (restrictions to free speech)

Checkpoints Content-based Regulation: Content can be restrained based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.

Valmonte v De Villa: Authorities in checkpoints may only conduct visual search, not bodily search. Content-neutral Regulation: Content can be restrained based on the incident of free speech such as time, place,
or the manner of the speech.
When can inadmissible evidence be returned?

_________ v _________: It depends. Inadmissible evidence can only be returned if the same is legal, otherwise,
it will not be returned.
Rules on criticizing public officials RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

US v Bustos: A public official should not be onion-skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts. The
interest of the government and the society demands full discussion of public affairs
Baguio Midland Courier v CA: The article involving a private individual running for public office is still within the
guarantee of freedom of expression as provided in the Constitution. It is the public’s right to be informed of the
mental, moral, and physical fitness of candidates for public office.
Other Important Notes:
Estrada v Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, 408 SCRA 1: Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been abandoned
by their spouse and executed a declaration of pledging faithfulness may enter into extra-marital relations, with the
approval of his/her congregation.
Imbong v Ochoa: Matters concerning life and death trumps religious freedom.
Ebralinag v The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu: Religious freedom is superior to the statute requiring
pupils to sing the National Anthem, recite the patriotic pledge, and salute the flag.

Elizalde v Gutierrez: In order that any news item relating to a judicial proceeding will not be actionable, the same Ang Ladlad v COMELEC: Under Section 5, Article III, no law shall be made
must be (1) a true and fair report of the actual proceedings; (2) must be done in good faith; (3) no comments nor respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This non-establishment clause
remarks shall be made by the writer. means that the government should be neutral in religious matters.

Tests of Obscenity RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Miller v California, the requisites are: Limitations:

1. Whether the average person, applying to contemporary community standards, would find the whole 1. Lawful order of the court
material appeals to the prurient interest of sex
2. Whether the work depicts or describes a patently offensive sexual conduct; and Ex. Pending criminal case
3. Whether the work, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. MTC: right to travel prevails, mtc has no jurisdiction to issue hold departure order
Distinguish RTC, SB: It depends. Accused cannot travel abroad if crime is not bailable.
Clear and Present Danger Rule: Manotoc v CA: If crime is bailable, accused may travel abroad provided he must:
The standard in determining whether a rally is permissible (1) convince the court of the urgency of his travel;
The circumstances will definitely bring about substantive evils that the State has the right to prevent. (2) the duration thereof; and
Dangerous Tendency Rule (3) that his sureties are willing to undertake the responsibility of allowing him to travel
The circumstances might bring about substantive evil. 2. Anti-Terrorism Law / Human Security Act
Balancing-of-Interest Test Section 26: Persons who have been charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, even if they have
When free speech is regulated and partially abridged in the interest of the public order, it is the duty of the courts been granted bail, can be detained under house arrest or restricted from traveling.
to determine which of the two conflicting interests demand greater protection under the circumstances presented.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Relevant Cases in balancing of interest
Aquino-Sarmiento v Morato; Valmonte v Belmonte; Baldoza v Dimaano: The right of the people to matters of
Ayer Production v Enrile: public concern is not absolute. It is subject to limitations provided by law as well as reasonable conditions
Lagunzad v Gonzales: imposed by public officials in custody of said records like (1) the payment of expenses for the reproduction of the
public documents and (2) the request must be done during office hours.