Constitutional Law 21

Outline 2015-2016

Ricardo A. Sunga III2

[email protected]

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A. POLICE POWER

1
I am grateful to Prof. Carmelo Sison, on whose syllabus this course outline
is based.
2
Ricardo A. Sunga III, BS ME (Ateneo de Manila University), LLB
(University of the Philippines) and LLM (University of New South Wales), is
a United Nations special procedures mandate holder, having been
appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as a Member of the
United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent,
http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/2013-06-27-21-50-36/phl-embassies-and-
consulates/4625-filipino-appointed-to-the-un-working-group-of-experts-on-
people-of-african-descent viewed 14 November 2014. See also
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Racism/WGAfricanDescent/Pages/Members.
aspx viewed 7 August 2015. His research interests include the international
human rights law on torture and enforced disappearances. See, for
example, Ricardo A. Sunga III, The Committee on Enforced Disappearances
and Its Monitoring Procedures (2012), 17(1) Deakin Law Review 151,
available at http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol17-iss1/vol17-
1-6.pdf, viewed 7 November 2012, ISSN 1 321-3660, Ricardo A. Sunga III,
On Locating the Rights of Lost (2012), 45(4) John Marshall Law Review
1051, available at http://lawreview.jmls.edu/articles/show/54, viewed 22
November 2012, and Ricardo A. Sunga III, Protecting the Children of the
Lost (2012), 86(4) Philippine Law Journal 796, available at
http://plj.upd.edu.ph/protecting-the-children-of-the-lost/, viewed 29 May
2013..
1. Nature and basis

2. Distinguished from other powers

3. Scope

a. generally

b. particular aspects

(1) public health

(2) public morals

(3) public safety

(4) public welfare

4. Limitations

a. general

b. due process

c. equal protection

Cases:

Fabie v. City of Manila, 21 Phil., 486 (1912)

5. Tests for validity of exercise of police power

a. interest of the public generally as distinguished

from a particular class

b. means employed reasonably necessary for

accomplishment of purpose and not unduly
oppressive
 Cases:

Bautista v. Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)

6. Who may exercise

1. Legislature

2. Executive

7. Cases:

Telecommunications & Broadcast Attorneys of the

Phils .v. COMELEC, 189 SCRA 337 (1998)

B. EMINENT DOMAIN

1. Concept

2. Who may exercise power

3. Conditions for exercise

4. Taking

Cases:

CIR v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 406 SCRA 414

(2005)

5. Public use
 Case:

Maosca v. RP, 252 SCRA 412 (1997)

6. Just compensation

Cases:

Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 (2005)

C. TAXATION

Art. VI, Sec. 28

Art. X, Sec. 5

1. Nature and extent

2. Distinguished from special assessments; license fees

3. Limitations

4. Double Taxation

5. Impairment of obligation of contracts

6. Tax exemptions

Cases:

Tan v. del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (1994)

 BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1 Due process and equal protection

1. Substantive due process

Cases:

Montesciaros v. COMELEC, 384 SCRA 269 (2002)

2. Procedural due process

Judicial

Cases:
Salazar v. People, 411 SCRA 598 (2003)

Administrative

Cases:
DOH v. Camposano, 457 SCRA 438 (2005)

3. Notice

Dagloc v. COMELEC, 395 SCRA 742 (2003)

4. Impartiality

People v. Tee, 395 SCRA 419 (2003)

5. Certainty

Void for vagueness

 Cases:
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19,
2001

Overbreadth

Cases:
City of Manila v. Laguio, 455 SCRA 308 (2005)

6. Equal Protection

Cases:
Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 (2005)

Section 2 Security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

1. Arrests, searches & seizures

1.1 Warrantless arrest (Rule 113, Sec. 5, 2000 Rules of

Criminal Procedure)

Cases:
People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51 (2004)

1.2 Arrest under warrant

Cases:
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)

1.3 Determination of probable cause

 Cases:
People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

1.4 Power of the Court

Cases:
Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349 (1993)

1.5 What constitutes searching questions

Case:
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968)

1.6 Issuance of arrest warrant

Cases:
Samulde v. Salvani, Jr., 165 SCRA 734 (1988)

1.7 RTC Judges need not personally examine complainant

Cases:
Allado & Mendoza v. Hon. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192
(1994)

2. Administrative warrant

Cases:
Jackson v. Macalino, G.R. No. 139255, November 24,
2003

3. Conditions for issuance of search warrant

Cases:
Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)
3.1 Procedure to determine probable cause to search

Cases:
Chu v. Tamin, 410 SCRA 53 (2003)

3.2 Particular description of things to be seized

Cases:
Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529 (2003)

4. Warrantless search

Incident to lawful arrest

Cases:
People v. Pangilinan, 410 SCRA 394 (2003)

Routinary searches at airports

People v. Johnson, GR No 138881, December 18, 2000

People v. Canton, GR No 148825, December 27, 2002

Moving vehicles

Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)

Stop and Frisk

People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003)

Objects in Plain View

 People v. Go, 411 SCRA 81 (2003)

5. What may be seized

Rule 126, Sec. 2, Rules of Court

Exclusionary rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2)

Case:
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)

6. Civil action for damages

Cases:
Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1988)

Section 3 Privacy of communication and correspondence

Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188 (2005)

Section 4 Freedom of expression

1. Freedom of speech and press

a. Meaning and scope

b. Aspects

c. Forms of abridgment

1. Prior restraint concept and kinds

2. Subsequent Punishment concept and
kinds
 d. Tests

1. Dangerous tendency
2. Clear and present danger
3. Balancing of interests

e. Prior restraint

Cases:
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 448
SCRA 575 (2005)

f. Subsequent punishment

Cases:
Espuelas v. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951)

g. Freedom of expression and libel

Cases:
Philippine Journalists v. Thoen, 477 SCRA 482 (2005)

h. Freedom of expression and administration of

justice

Cases:
In re: Atty.Leonard de Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, July
29, 2002

i. Freedom of expression and obscenity

P.D. 1986 (1985)

Cases:
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
 j. Freedom of expression and radio broadcasts

Case:
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica
Foundation, 438 US 726, 57 L Ed 2d 1073, 98 S Ct
3026 (1978)

2. Freedom of assembly and petition

B.P. Blg. 880 (22 Oct. 1985) Public Assembly Act of

1985

Cases:
Acosta v. CA, 334 SCRA 486 (2000)

Section 5 Freedom of religion

1. Non-establishment of religion

Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)

Art. VI, Sec. 1(2)
Art. IV, Sec. 14(3)

Cases:
Garces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510 (1981)

2. Free exercise of religion

Cases:
In Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different
Court of Iligan City, 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
Section 6 Liberty of abode and right to travel

Cases:
Yap v. CA, GR No141529, June 6, 2001

Section 7 Right to information

Cases:
Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152 (2002)

Section 8 Freedom of association

Cases:
Padcom Condominium Association v. Ortigas Center
Association, Inc, 382 SCRA 222 (2002)

Section 9 Just compensation

Taking

Cases:

CIR v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 406 SCRA 414

(2005)

Public use

Case:
Maosca v. RP, 252 SCRA 412 (1997)

Just compensation

Cases:
 Land Bank v. Wycoco, 13 January 2004

Section 10 Non-impairment of the obligation of contracts

Cases:
Republic v. Rosemoor Mining and Development
Corporation, 426 SCRA 517 (2004)

Section 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies

and adequate legal assistance

Section 12 Rights under investigation

1. Right to silence, to counsel, and to warnings

Cases:
Uy v. Phela Trading Company, 451 SCRA 124 (2005)

1.1 Prosecutions burden to prove warnings

Case:
People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986)

1.2 Police line-up

Case:
People v Piedad, GR No 131923, December 5, 2002

1.3 Requirements for warnings to be valid

Cases:
People v. Alberto, GR No 132374, 22 August 2002
2. Tests of waiver of Miranda rights

2.1 Art. III, Sec. 12(1)

Cases:
People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)

2.2 Waiver of right to remain silent and to counsel,

but not to be given warnings

Exclusionary rule

Art. III, Sec. 12(3)

Cases:
New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984)

i) Confession secured by deceit

Cases:
People v. Ochate, GR No 127154, 30 July 2002

ii) Confession secured by deceit

People v. Formentera, 130 SCRA 114 (1984)

iii) Confession obtained by torture

People v. Ortilla, 129 SCRA 250 (1984)

iv) Trial confession in non-custodial setting

Cases:
People v. Encipido, 146 SCRA 478 (1988)
 v) Right to counsel in administrative investigation

Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, GR No 137473,

August 2, 2001

vi) Right to counsel before officer conducting

preliminary investigation

People v. Abano, 145 SCRA 555 (1986)

vii) Right to counsel during identification

confrontation

People v. Usman Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)

vii) Uncounselled confession inadmissible

People v. Janson, 400 SCRA 584 (2003)

3. Privilege against self-incrimination

3.1 Signing receipts not self-incriminatory

Cases:
People v. Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85 (1988)

Section 13 Right to bail

5.1 Application for bail moots habeas corpus

Cases:
Bagcal v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983)
 5.2 Meaning of capital offense

Cases:
People v. Parba, 142 SCRA 158 (1986)

Restriction of provisional liberty as bail

Case:
Manotok, Jr. v. C.A., 142 SCRA 149 (1986)

5.3 When right may be invoked

Cases:
Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321 (2000)

5.4 When right may not be invoked

Case:
Government of the U.S.A. v. Purganan, G.R. No.
148571, Sept. 25, 2002

5.5 Standards for fixing bail

Rule 114 Sec. 10

Cases:
Magsucang v. Balgos, 398 SCRA 158 (2003)

Section 14 Criminal due process

1. Impartial tribunal

Cases:
Cojuangco v. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226 (1990)
 2. Presumption of innocence

Cases:
Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005)

Rule 119, Sec. 3(e)

Case:
People v. Quintal, 125 SCRA 734 (1983)

3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel

Case:
People v. Macarang, 424 SCRA 18 (2004)

4. Filing of demurrer to evidence is a waiver of right

to be heard (Rule 119, Sec. 5)

Case:
People v. Donesa, 49 SCRA 281 (1973)

Rule 119, Sec. 15

Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation

Cases:
People v. Ting Lan Uy, 457 SCRA 248 (2005)

5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

5.1 speedy -

Caballes v. CA, 452 SCRA 312 (2005)

 5.2 public -

Garcia v. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1973)

5.3 impartial trial -

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 US 511 (1927)

6. Right to personal confrontation

Admission of hearsay violates right to confrontation

People v. Montenegro, G.R. No. 157933, August 10,

2004

7. Right to secure attendance of witnesses

8. Trial in absentia

Rule 115, Sec. 1(c)

Cases:
Jimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1 (1988)

9. When presence of accused a duty

Rule 116, Sec. 1(b)

9.1 arraignment Rule 116, Sec. 1(b)

9.2 during trial for identification

Cases:
Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546
(1975)
Section 15 Habeas corpus

Cases:
Moncupa v. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986)

Section 16 Right to a speedy disposition of cases

Cases:
Republic v. Desierto, 468 SCRA 458 (2005)

Section 17 Right against self-incrimination

Scope

Cases:
People v. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)

Proceedings where available

Cases:
Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA
344 (1969)

Use immunity v. transactional immunity

Art. XIII Sec. 18(8) - (Use & fruit immunity)

Rep. Act. No. 1379, Sec. 8 (Transactional immunity)

Exclusionary rule

Art. III, Sec. 12(b)

 Effect of denial of privilege by Court

Case:
Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

Section 18 Political beliefs and aspirations

Section 19 Cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

Lim v. People, G.R. No. 149276, 27 September, 2002

Section 20 Non imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll

tax

Arceta v. Mangrobing, 432 SCRA 136 (2004)

Section 21 Double jeopardy

Vincoy v. CA, 423 SCRA 605 (2004)

i) Prosecution for supervening death even after

earlier conviction for physical injuries

People v. City Court of Manila, Br. XI, 121 SCRA 637

(1983)

ii) Retrial after unjustified dismissal allowed

People v. Tagle, 176 SCRA 809 (1989)

 iii) Double jeopardy for same act

People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)

iv) Dismissal on motion to quash prevents jeopardy

People v. Quizada, 160 SCRA 516 (1988)

v) Double jeopardy after dismissal on demurrer

People v. Mogol, 131 SCRA 296 (1984)

vi) Absence of jurisdiction prevents jeopardy

Zapatos v. People, 411 SCRA 148 (2003)

Section 22 Ex post facto law or bill of attainder

Cases:
Recuerdo v. People, G.R. No. 133036, January 22, 2003

SUGGESTED REFERENCE

Bernas, Joaquin. The Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines: A Commentary (2009).