Constitutional

Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A INTRODUCTORY LECTURE Principles of Human Rights a) b) c) d) e) Universal Inalienable Inherent Indivisible Interrelated National

Traditionally state has primary responsibility to respect, protect and fulfill HR Present non-state actors can be held liable Obligations to HR (Respect, Protect, Fulfill) Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights Terms Of Reference Focus on PROMOTION not PROTECTION.

Core International HR Instruments UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR declaration UDHR non-binding convention ICCPR, ICESCR legally binding done because of Cold war (US-USSR)

Nature inter-governmental and consultative members are representatives of ASEAN member states decision making will be by consensus lacks protection function EX. when NCHR ignored case filed by lawyer for Ampatuan massacre because AICHR lacks a complaints mechanism TOR under review in 5 years

done bec. argued as customary law Human Rights System

ART. III SECTION 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 1. Bill of Rights: Protection against the abuse of power. The perfection of humanity is not possible without freedom for the individual. Thus the existence of social institutions and all political

International (UN) >Charter-based >Treaty-based Regional >Europe >Inter-America >Africa >Asia

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A organizations and relationships are justified insofar as they have for their primary aim the defense and protection of freedom. Marcelo H. del Pilar Government is the delicate art of balancing the power of government and the freedom of the governed. Aim of the Philippine revolution was to achieve a just restraint of governmental power and a corresponding expansion of individual freedom. American colonizers implanted a system that promised the achievement of balance between power and freedom. Inherent powers of government are police power, eminent domain and taxation which the constitution can only define, delimit and allocate their exercise among various government agencies. POLICE POWER - - - - - rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the public to self-protection scope expands and contracts with changing needs Significant development and change in areas of labor, agricultural tenancy and social legislation its exercise enjoys presumption of constitutionality vested in legislators and delegated to - president in consti cases - local govts US v. Toribio leading case w/c stated that legislative determination of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is subject to judicial review insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person as measured against the due process clause and equal protection clause. While the restrictions in the Bill of Rights are applicable only to the state, these same restrictions have been codified in Article 32 (Civil code) to be made applicable to private persons. 2. Life, liberty, property. Fourteenth Amendment Art III Section 1 xxx nor shall any State deprive No person shall be deprived of any person of life, liberty or life, liberty or property without property without due process of due process of law, nor shall any law; nor deny to any person person be denied the equal within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. protection of the laws. Protection touches all persons: Adopted American citizens or aliens, natural or interpretation, and is given the corporate. Universal application same force and effect of latter to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction without regard to any difference of race, color or nationality. GAURANTEE protects LIBERTY: the measures of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of freedom in others xxx chief elements are the right to contract, the right to choose ones employment, the right to labor and the right of locomotion xxx freedom to do right and never wrongevery guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual (Rubi v. provincial Board of Mindoro)

No grant of legislative power to MMDA, it is not a political subdivision (MMDA v BAVA). HOWEVER must be exercised w/in constitutional limits

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A IMPORTACE in Philippine tradition emphasized by J. Conception that framers devoted several sections to promote several aspects of freedom (People v. Hernandez) which have been preserved in the present constitution. New safeguard was recently enacted in Writ of Amparo by the Puno court to safeguard the liberty of persons under threat or danger of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Protected property has been deemed to include vested rights e.g. perfected mining claim, perfected homestead, final judgment, right to work, right to earn a living, employment, profession or trade. However public office is not property, but a public trust or agency. Due process may be relied on by public official to protect security of tenure which is analogous to property (Corona v. United Harbor Pilot Assocn of the Philippines). No right is absolute and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, or the public health and welfare and public morals (Executive Secretary v. CA). Can a person be deprived of life so long as due process is followed? YES. Procedural due process No one denied without opportunity for defense Substantive due process prohibition against arbitrary laws

Right to life is a right to a good life a life where human dignity is a core norm to be respected. Right to life is not yet nonderogable but right against torture is. 3. Hierarchy of rights. Property is placed in an inferior position to life and liberty; property rights may be lost, but not so with human rights. (73 Consti convention, J. Fernando in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, J. Makasiar in Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills) Property rights Human rights Requires reasonable or rational Requires the existence of a relation between the means grave and immediate danger of employed by the law and its a substantive evil which the objectives not arbitrary, State has the right to prevent discriminatory nor oppressive Hierarchy of rights, has not been expressly overturned or segregated (Philippine Blooming Mills) Fr. Bernas: Property is more closely regulated not in order to oppress the owner but in order to impress upon him the social character of what he holds. International trend is civic and political rights over other rights. General Rule: Art III is self-executing, addressed to government, a limitation of actions.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A 4. Due process as procedural fairness. Early American history understood it as a guarantee of procedural fairness, law which hears before it condemns (Daniel Webster). Early Philippine jurisprudence defined the concept by integrating elements of procedural and substantive due process with element s of equal protection. What is due process of law depends on circumstances ESSENTIALS (Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca), later spelled out in the details of procedural statutes and the Rules of Court 1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; 2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings; 3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; 4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Administrative bodies Cardinal primary requirement (Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations) 1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right t present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3) The decision must have something to support itself 4) The evidence must be substantial: such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion 5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate 7) The Board or body should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS requires need for notice and an opportunity to be heard. Can be satisfied by subsequent due hearing. Guarantees fairness in enforcement of laws which effect deprivation. Two purposes a) contributes to accuracy and minimizes errors in deprivations b) gives the subject of deprivation a sense of rational participation in a decision that can affect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking person While notice and hearing are required in judicial and quasi- judicial proceedings, they are not prerequisites in the promulgation of general rules.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A Educational Institutions (Guzman v. National University) May be summary and cross-examination is not an essential part 1) Students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them 2) They shall have any the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired 3) They shall be informed of the evidence against them 4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence on their own behalf 5) The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case 5. Substantive due process Clause includes not only guarantee of forms of procedure but also the very substance of life, liberty and property; guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when the power is exercised according to proper form and procedure. Early Philippine recognized this, but was rarely invoked with success starting with US v. Toribio where the court held that such intrusion by the State was justified when: a) The interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference b) That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals The judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action where there is no clear invasion of personal and property rights under the guise of police regulation (U.S. v. Salaveria) Churchill v. Rafferty upheld a statute regulating billboards for aesthetic values. Applying the rule in Munn v. Illinois if no circumstances could be stated to justify the statute it must be held to be void. The ruling in Churchill is contrary to American jurisprudence which held that aesthetic considerations are a matter of luxury and an improper exercise of police power. Later though, the use of police power due to aesthetics gained ground when paired with health, safety and morals. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled (Geral Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Department of Public Works, US case) Regulatory powers over onsite billboards are necessarily narrower because of the freedom of persons to treat their premises as they please. Demands of welfare and public interest justify creating reservations for indigenous tribes and the use of public money for burial of indigents. The employer and employee have equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract (People v. Pomar)

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A But while property may be regulated in the interest of the general welfare, an in its pursuit, the State may prohibit structures offensive to the sight, the State may not under the guise of police power permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community (People v. Fajardo) Fr. B: Aesthetics them may be used as a reason for taking, but there must be due process and just compensation. Principle of presumed constitutionality reiterated in Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Inc v. City Mayor of Manila which required factual foundation must be presented to rebut the presumption. A regulation designed to meet a temporary need must fix a period (Homeowners Association case, p 128) 70s and 80s continue traditional standpoint. So with the 1987 constitution which upheld the presumption of validity of official action. 6. Publication and clarity of laws as a requirement of due process. (Taada v. Tuvera) States that Art 2 of the Civil Code requires that publication be indispensable, only the length may be changed. Due process requires knowledge of a command before obedience. Rule applies to all laws, laws of local application and administrative rules, presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the president in the exercise of legislative power (as delegated by legislature or conferred by constitution), but not to interpretative regulations and those internal in nature. A law which is utterly vague is defective because it fails to give notice. Vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its applicationrepugnant to constitution because it fails to accord persons fair notice of the conduct to be avoided and leaves officers unbridled discretion in enforcing it. It must be utterly vague on its face and cannot be clarified by a saving clause or by construction or those which are apparently ambiguous but applicable to certain activities (People v. Nozario) Estrada v. Sandiganbayan held that the onerous task of rebutting the presumption weighs heavily on the party challenging the validity of the statute and that the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. Void for vagueness doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine (means used greater than that necessary, infringe protected freedoms) apply only to cases involving speech or First Amendment cases. A litigant may challenge a statute as vague on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications. However laws which do not involve speech can be declared invalid for vagueness.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A 7. Equal protection Is legal equality or equality of all persons before the law, but does not prohibit classification. Most cases are preoccupied with determining the validity of classifications made by law. No person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and like circumstances (Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy) Reasonable classification when (People v. Cayat) 1) 2) 3) 4) Must rest on substantial distinctions Must be germane to the purpose of the law Must not be limited to existing conditions only Must apply equally to all members of the same class Used for classifications on rights considered fundamental Applied to suspect classifications like gender or illegitimacy. Traditional test and applies to all else.

Most used test is liberal rational scrutiny test. Court held Constitution does not require absolute equality among residents, in deciding constitutionality of RA No 7227 converting the former bases into the Subic Special Economic Zone (Tiu v. Court of Appeals) Practice of the International School of giving higher salary for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank was declared unconstitutional (International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing) Classification if rational in character is allowable (every person treated in the same manner in similar circumstances), made applicable to taxation in Sison Jr. v. Ancheta and the British American Tobacco case. The requirement of uniformity is met when the tax operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. Subject to the rational basis test, that the statute must be shown to rationally further a legitimate state interest. Central Bank Employees v. Bangko Central held that a law valid at one time may be rendered invalid by subsequent developments. 8. Alienage as basis of classification (see notes)

THREE TESTS FOR SCRUTINY Strict scrutiny test Intermediate or middle-tier scrutiny test Requires the Requires government to government to show that the show that the challenged challenged classification serves classification serves a compelling state an important state interest interest and classification is at least reasonably related to serving the interest Minimum or rational basis scrutiny Government need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A Pre-1935 cases dealt with statutes that excluded aliens from enjoying certain economic privileges. Smith, Bell and Co. v. Natividad upheld a statute that excluded non- Filipinos and non-Americans from engaging in the coastwide trade. Reasoning, which would meet todays standard for strict scrutiny, is that government is allowed to protect its citizens and the integrity of its dominion from evil-minded foreigners; that common carriers in the Philippines are affected with public interest and the use of our public waters is a privilege; to encourage Philippine shipbuilding. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila upheld constitutionality of ordinance which required receipts be issued in Spanish and English, it invalidated an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of account books in any language other than English, Spanish or any local dialect on appeal to the SC(Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad). Li Seng Giap and Co v. Director of Lands held aliens cannot acquire certain public lands. General Rule: Aliens enjoy same civil rights as citizens, but not the same political rights. Post-1935 cases dealt with Filipinization of the economy, the passing of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law (Ichong v. Hernanded) and the Anti-Dummy Law (King v. Hernaez). A statute may be invalidated not only when it classifies but also when it fails to classify (Villegas v. Hiu Chiong) 9. Equal protection and the laws of local application Does not require territorial uniformity, but there is a limit to allowable lack of uniformity. Can be violated by creating a system that can foster inequality, such as when the legislature in Act No 2221 the Probation act delegated to provincial boards the discretion appropriate salaries of probation officers (People v. Vera, p 152) The Vera decision was contradicted in later cases. Should be read in light of the 87 Consti bias towards local autonomy, with the caveat that the local laws must apply equally to all those who come within their jurisdiction (Bernas). 10. Adjustments resulting from war. Unusual circumstances can demand legal adjustments. The handling of a large number of political prisoners necessitated some change in existing procedural law (Laurel v. Misa) The handling of tax delinquency after the war necessitated adjustment (Juan Luna Subdivision Inc v. Sarmiento) 11. Equal protection and the political process Philippine Constitutional Association v. Jimenez denied that congressmen could be grouped as a class in order to allocate them retirement benefits. Martinez v. Morfe invalidated Art 145 of the RPC for giving legislators immunity from arrest for certain crimes. This was later nullified by 1973 and 1987 Constitution that gave legislators similar immunity.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A In re Subido which disqualified public officers and employees from serving as delegates to the Constitutional Convention by considering them resigned from office (Section 4, RA No 6132) held that there exists substantial differences between said public officials and persons employed in private enterprises. A retiree may be not be allowed to run for the same office he resigned from is at the start of the new term he is to be 65 years of age due to the need for new blood in the political system held as valid (Dumlao v. COMELEC). Ceniza v. COMELEC held whether a city was to be allowed to participate in the provincial election is a matter of legislative discretion. Head of state may be accorded opportunities not made available to his opposition (UNIDO v. COMELEC) Limitations on election campaigns for the purpose of equalizing opportunities was likewise upheld (National Press Club v. Commission on Elections) 12. Equal protection and land reform To make a case of violation of the equal protection clause, it would require a clear and probable showing that a particular piece of property was chosen to bear the brunt of governmental authority out of a feeling of disapproval or ill will. Power of eminent domain can be used by government as an instrument for land reform (J Fernando, JM Tuason & Co v. Land Tenure Administration) Land reform cannot be used by the government for nullifying classification based on alienage (Tan Sy v. land Tenure Administration) 13. Equality in the criminal process People v. Ching Kuan held that Art 66 of the RPC which graduates fines within a prescribed minimum and maximum range determined according to the means and wealth of the culprit is valid, because equality before the law is not literal and mathematical but relative and practical. Gumaban v. Director of Prisons held that the continued incarceration of prisoners after they have served the maximum term of their sentence, after the crime they were originally adjudged guilty of was negated by People v. Hernandez, violates equal protection. Nuez v. Sandiganbayan held constitutional command creating the Sandiganbayan and the pervasiveness of crime in the public office justified the lesser procedural rights in that court compared to other courts. Himagan v. People allowed a policemen to be suspended until the end of prosecution of his case, because police officers have the capability to harass or intimidate witnesses with their badge and weapons. Olaguer v. Military Commission declared that military tribunals had no jurisdiction over civilians even during Martial Law. The Olaguer doctrine was nullified by Cruz v Enrile but was later upheld by virtue of ML being an operative fact, expanding its application to only

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A future cases, cases still ongoing or not yet promulgated at the time the decision was promulgated. 14. Equal protection and women, etc. Section 14 Art II and Art IV recognize fundamental equality of men and women. Goesart v. Clearly bartending case, upheld classification of wives and daughters of tavern owners as valid. Reed v. Reed, invalidated the Idaho Probate Code that gives preference to men over women as administrators of an estate. Stanley v. Illinois held an unwed father cannot be denied custody of his children without a hearing on parental fitness. 15. Miscellany on equal protection Most cases are run of the mill. One which stands out is the Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board where the Court seemingly did not consider it a privilege to be the sole source of private representation in the Control and Inspection Board. 16. The future of equal protection. There are significant strides towards recognizing a constitutionally imposed duty of the state to take positive measures to achieve equality in certain fields. ART III SECTION 2 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 1. Purpose of the provision. Inviobility of the home is one of the fundamental rights recognized by civilized nations; a mans home is his castle (US v. Arceo) The guarantee prevents a person from being irreversibly cut off from that domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable (People v. Bolasa) Is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only those that are unreasonable. Valmonte v. de Villa, For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable searches and seizures. People v. Escao, stated that allowable checkpoints are those which are warranted by the exigencies of the public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. General Rule: Searches and seizures are unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A Between person and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue such. 2. Probable cause. The factual and practical considerations of everyday life which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act (Brinegar v. United States) such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper (US v Addison) such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant, that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof (People v. Sy Juco) Concerned with probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt and the standard of judgment is that of a reasonable prudent man. There is no presumption of regularity of searches. Can be defined in relation to the action which it justifies: For an arrest Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested For a search warrant Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has just been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched, need not point to a specific offender What amounts to sufficient evidence may differ from case to case depending on the nature of the object of search. Columbia Pictures v. CA required that master tapes of copyrighted films must be presented in court if there is doubt about the true nexus between the master tape and copies. Stonehill v. Diokno, establishment of probable cause presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against who it is sought performed or failed to perform particular acts violating a law. Probable cause is probable cause of something specific. Central Bank v. Morfe held the failure of the witness to mention particular individuals did not mean he had no personal knowledge of the illegal transactioneven if the names of the individuals concerned were unknown to him. The acts imputed to the organization were of the general pattern of the business organization. Interest of the law RA No 337 - is to protect entire public, and not any specific victim. 3. Determination of probable cause: by whom and how; meaning of personally. 1935 Consti, Art III Sec 1(3) In a deportation case, the ponente singled out the judge as the only officer who could determine probable cause because of the plain language of the constitution did not distinguish between warrants in criminal and administrative cases (Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board)

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A Judges also have the power to conduct preliminary examination even if statutes are silent about the power (Collector of Customs v. Villaluz) 4. From the 1973 Constitution interlude to the 1987 restoration. 1973 constitution allowed that probable cause may be determined by such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. Function of determining whether or not there exists probable cause is only quasi-judicial (Ocampo v. United States) Original intent of 71 delegates was to appoint power to prosecution or law enforcement officers, but such was deleted out of fear of abuse, then restored without discussion. American jurisprudence has held that the estimate of probable cause must be made by the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate and not by a policeman or government enforcement agent. (Coolidge v. New Hampshire) Shadwick v. City of Tampa held that not all magistrates need be lawyers or judges (warrant authority vested in them), only that they meet two tests (1) he be neutral and detached; (2) he be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search. 1987 Constitution has brought back 35 consti rule that only judges may issue warrants. 5. Personal examination of the witness Determination must be made only after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and the warrant must contain the required particularity of description. Under Section 3 of the Jones Law of 1916 supplemented by Orders No. 58 Section 98 it was considered an irregularity for the judge to issue a search warrant without first examining the complainant or witness under oath. 1935 Constitution adopted the same. oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking issuance of the warratn, of the existence of probable cause (Alvarez v. CFI) Bache & Co v. Ruiz held that the manner (deputy of clerk reading to him stenographic notes) respondent judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of complainant and his witnesses, and to propound initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind on account of its training, was in the best position to conceive. Reiterated in Roan v. Gonzales where affidavits of complainant and witnesses were held to be insufficient, required the examining judge to take depositions in writing. 1987 text meant to embody rule in Bache. But as formulated personally referred to determined. Thus in Soliven v. Judge Makasiar the court could soften the Bache rule to justify the warrant issued against Beltran to mean that the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Constitutional Law II Atty Maita Chan-Gonzaga Second semester AY 10-11 PEAMANTE 1A However subsequent decisions cite Section 4 of Rule 126 of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure which required the judge to personally examine witnesses and complainant in the form of searching questions and answers. Depending on the circumstances of the case the judge may or may not rely on the fiscals evaluation (Pendon v. Court of Appeals) Lim Sr. v. Judge Felix: The Prosecutor can perform the same functions in taking evidence. There should be a report and necessary documents supporting a Fiscals bare certification. The extent of the Judges personal examination depends on the circumstances of the case. The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses or to await the submission of counter affidavits from the accused. The judge shall (Borlongan, Jr. v. Pea): 1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause 2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutors report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause 6. Particularity of description. Uy Khetin v. Villareal : purpose and intent is to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made xxx Defined such as (Bache & Co. v. Ruiz) : a) is a specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow b) or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure c) or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued 7. Searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. ART. III SECTION 3 The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon a lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.