DeLeon v.

Esguerra: Consti Take effect: Plebscite –immediately

Consti is obligitary – otherwise president can

Manila prince hotel case: Filipino first policy

National economy – national heritage – includes , building historical

2 modes of proposing

Propose amendment or revision (sec 1, Art 17)

1. Congress ¾ votes of all its members or
2. Constitutional convention
“or” Gonzales v. comelec Case congress used both – Resolution(3)
- RBH 1 – house of rep increase composition
- RBH2 proposal to call con conventiom
- RBH 3 Congress can run as delegate without forfeting seat

The congress sought to use both challenge – SC held sometimes or means and or
vice versa – the congress can directily propose and the same time call fo
constitutional convention

¾ of all its members – “of the congess” different

Avelino v. Cuenco – there were 22 present 1 hospital, 1 USA, 10 walked out
Does 12 constitute quorum:
“majority of the house” variable – 12 is the quorum of 23 (counted only is within
the jurisdiction
“majority of all” fixed must be 3/2 of 24
Joint or Separate? Absence of phrase voting separately, the constitunal
commission intended joint meaning 24 +280 then ¾ of that, the senator can be
overruled by congress
Since congress is acting constituent assembly – 1 vote of senate = 1 vote of
member of HOR
Can we assume now? No! STILL SEPARATE – will harmonize all provisions
Third tool of interpretation – must be interpreted in harmony with other
provision– if jointly will render nugatory sec art 6 – principle od chacks and
balance – check 1 house and other house – Therefore VOTING SEPARATELT

Par 1 sec art 16 “maj of all”

Par 2 Quorum “maj of senate”
Currently we have 23 senators because cayetano is appointed as agriculture
½ + 1 of 23
½ +1 of 24

Imbong v. Ferrer
- Pass the implementing details qualification of delegates etc
- Doctrine of necessary implication
- Grant express power have necessary power to carry
 - Power of implementation acting as con ass and kegsilative body
- Inherent in congress
- Mere resolutions will do
- ¾ votes if
- constitutional convention is abody separate and distinctr from congress
- con con – fixed on time or purpose
- con con is a collegial body
- con con must first approve the proposal before to the people
Occena v. Comelec
- Majority of members of con con to approve propsal
-2 modes of calling: 2/3 votes of all members of congress, they can majority of all
members then refer to the people the calling of such con con

Sec 2, Art 17
System of intiative
-limits the power of the pople
-only proposal to amendment constitution

Consti requirement
1. Propsal must be signed by 12 of reg voters. 3%
2. Implementing legislation – congress must provide
Do we have a legislation? Yes we have, Ra 6735
Santaiago v comelec: declare RA 6735 insufficient
Lambino v. comelec 10 justices voted that it is sufficient law. A citizen of the Philippines
can propose an inititative

Does the president has the power to propse amendments and revisions?
Sanidad v. Comelec: Marcos propose changes in 1973 constitution
SC sustained because made during transition period
Power to propose – power of National Assembly
Power to call NA – in the case instead of convening propose amendments
Marcos exercise the power of interim national assembly
Power to propse is Adjunct to the legislative power of interim National Assembly since
the president is already discharging the legislative power
This cannot be doctrine – Only 2 departments during that time – Judiciary and OP – of
course it’s not the OP – Still Gonzales is the prevailing doctrine the power to propose
amendment and revision is not inherent in the Congress –it is a constituent power can be
exercised upon expressed provision in the Constitution

Province of North Cotabato case:

- SC said that pres has no power to propose changes to constitution
- Cannot guaranty
- The pres can participate or can recommend to the congress the needed changes
the constitution still incumbent to congress to approvr or reject
- Pres can suggest to the people needed changes – seize upon suggestion – cannot
set aside budget to gather signature – suggest the right of initiative to people
 - So the consultative committee of the President Duterte is valid? SC said in
Biraogo v. Truth Commission – Power to create the committee rest from the take
care power of the President under sec 17, art 7 power to ensure that laws are
faithfully executed gives him authority dact finding committee -
- Authority of Consultative Committee to study needed changes? Still within
constitutional bounds – as long as only recommendatory – not binding to
Congress

2nd Step Ratification

- “By majority of the votes cast” – not registered voters
- General Election – elect their representatives
- Gonzales v. Comelec – Can simultaneously be submitted during general election
– use the word election – can be special and general – NOW: 1987 constitution
use the word plebiscite not election– special election.. Can we say that now that
ratification cannot be simultaneously submitted to people during general election?
Can still be done! How can we reconcile the word plebiscite as distinguish from
the ruling of SC in Gonzales that consti does
1. Plebiscite under art 17 is a process whereby a question is submitted to the
people for approval or rejection
2. Sec 4 Art 17 does not refer to a day but a process – day of holding that
process shall not be less than 60 days nor more than 90 days eiher after
approval or certification (sec 2)
3. There can be 2 separate process within a day – can be general and special
election for ratification of constitution– will receive 2 ballots
4.
Can Con convention or Con Ass submit to the people proposal ahead of other proposal?
- Tolentino v. Comelec – Piecemeal submission
SC applied doctrine of proper submission – all the proposed amendment of
revision shall be submitted to the people all at once in one election– cannot be
piecemeal – in order for the people to give a proper frame of mind in making
intelligent decision
- people given sufficient time to study the proposal – specified the date already – 60
and 90 days

Con Con submits all the proposal all at once – can the people choose which provision to
approve or reject – partly reject, partly approve?
Depends on the nature of the proposal – if just amendment proposa, which is an isolated
change – the people can choose what to ratify
Id the proposal is revision – accept all or reject all – because it has an affect to other
proposal

Tolentino v. Comelec
Who has the power to submit the proposal to the people?
SC did not determine
Proposal shall be submitted in plebiscite – requires budget? THE CONGRESS has the
power to set the date and appropriate. They have power to submit to the people

INHERENT POWER OF THE STATE

Similarities
Differences
Police Power and Taxation can only be exercised by government
Eminent Domain can be delegated even to private entity to quasi public corp
POLICE POWER – taking is for condemnation
Taxation and Eminent domain – wholesome, for public purpose or uswt

POLICE POWER
Definition: State’s authority to enact legislation that may interfere to personal liberty or
property for common good
Professo Freud: PP is the powerto promote gen welfare restraining

2 elements
1. Imosition of restraint
2. Common Good

Pasei case:

Not capable of exact definition

Scope is far reaching almost impossible to limit its weep
Covers almost ever activities

Ichong v. Her
Coexistent

There are 4 char

1. Most positive and active of all
2. Most essential
3. illimitable
4. insistent

Born from very fact of statehood

Still subject to restraint
Justice Marshall: Plenary power to govern citizarn; Allow government to prevent things
hurtful
Implied limitation to Bill or Right
PASEI: rooted in conception
Ichong: PP and BOR suppose to co exist
There can be no absolute liberty – anarchy
There can be no absolute liberty – tyranny
PP can be exercise not arbitrary and reasonable
Lozano Case
2 Test for valid exercise of PP
1. Lawful Subject – interest of public generally compare to particular class requires
interference
2. Lawful Means – requires that there must be a rational connection bet obj of law
and means employed and not oppresseion

LS- anything that affects pubic interest

Right to travel
Business of Retail trade
Choice of a profession (DECS v. San Diego) – 3 flunk rule NMAT test – responsibility of
the state to ensure that med prof is not infiltrated by incompetents where they entrusted
their life
Harness human resources
He can aspire but he cannot insist no consti right
Plumber and Lawyer SC was just telling if one has the potential

YNOT: 2 test must concutr. Both test must concur, it is not enough that only one
- the objective is a lwful object – preserve indiscrimate slaughtering of carbao
- lawful means – no rational connection between onject and means—will not
increase the protection – can be slaughtered abywhere

LUTZ v. Araneta
-3 inherit power can co exist
- can complement each other
- CA567 imposes taxes on sugar on the basis that it not uniforme – tax measure is a valid
governmental act – CA was issued not in the exercise of power of taxation
- power exercise by congress in eacting law is police power and using power of taxation
as an implement or username
- When do we say that its implement
-If the objective of tax measure is to regulate an article – the power is police power only
using taxation as instrument
- To raise revenue – power of txation

Power of Eminent domain cannot be use as an implement of Police power but it can be
use as a complement of PP

Implement – power is use as an instrument

Complement – use simultaneously together with the other power
ASSCO LAND OWNER v. SEC OF LAND REFORM
- Compre Agra law was challenged
- Powers discharge by congress in the law is both PP and ED
- Imposes restrictions on limits on ownership of land holdings - Regulate property
rights
- In so far as distributing the excess the limit – propert is taken – Just compensation
– Eminent Domain
POLICE POWER – Can PP confiscate?
- If regulating goes too far
- Can be taken – there are only specific type which can be taken

City Govt v. Ericta

- Ordinance that imposes donation 6% of land area in memorial park

- Force donation
- Use for burial of pauper residents
- NOT vaild governmental Power
- That amounts taken – involves a wholesome property
- Only prop can be taken: obNoxious property or for noxious use
- Valid taking in PP is for destriction on condemnation
- If for public use 00 Exercise of Eminend Domain

Manila memorial Park v. DSWD

- constitutionality of the discount to senior citizen
- treated as deductible not anymore tax credit
- before there is
- 32% can be refunded 68% burden of company
- SC said the act is valid, there is no taking involve, only a regulation
- The discount granted not yet part of the profit
- There is an expectation but no private property yet
- SC said that under price control law- regulating the right to make profit
- In the same case the regulate right determine how much of it will be profit
- No requirement for just compensation
Police power basis/principle
1. Salus Popoli supprema lex - Interest of the state issupreme law
2. One should use property not to injure other property rights
Both subordinate of interest to general welfare

EMINENT DOMAIN

ED is different from expropriation

- Sec 1 rule 67 Power of eminent domain shall be exercised through filing a
verified petition that is pet for expropriation)
Eminent Domain refers to the inherent power to take private property
Expropriation – the remedy of the state in exercising ED

Power of ED – private prop reserve for future use

Sec 9 of Art 3 applies to all
Sec 18 Art 12 – applies to public utilities
--they are mere limitation of the power of Eminent of Demain
Power of ED does not need consti provision
The power shall be resolve against expropriation in stictissimi juris
What is the source? Originates from necessity
Is question of necessity a justiciable q?

City of Mnl v. Chinese Community

- There are only 2 issues
- 1.Authority
- 2. Just Compensation
- Necessity justiciable if congress exercised – political
- If power of ED is exercised by specific delegation – political
- If through a rep thru general delegation – justiciable question
1. Since in the case general – court can deci
- Only private property
- When the title is registered in name of RPh – can it be subject to ED?
- Note that it is exercised as last resort – expropriation proceeding if owner refuses
to yield – first negotiate
- Public property? NO cannot be expropriated! Absurd situation – Rule 67
statement only presupposes that when there is private interest attached in the land
– Ex: Lease agreement – cannot just violate the contract but the government can
expropriate the contract – the private interest is the one expropriated
- Properties devoted to public use – can be expropriated remains to be private
property
- Money (only legal tender) and choses of action – not yet ripen into ownership –
cannot be expropriated
- US Dollars – dollar reserve is necessary in financial status of the state – They can
be expropriated –
- Evan lumang pera – historical value
- Can services be expropriated? Yes Republic v. PLDT case – PLDT no longer
willing to renew contract.. SC said cannot be compelled to enter a contract.
1. Services are also private property and can be expropriated
2. Supposing that Dept of Tourism – thinking of ways to increase foreign-
Sec Romulo liked the advice – a symbol shall be adopt – they will adopt a
symbol – Manny Pacquiao will be a mascot – Can the congress
expropriate the services of Sen Pacquiao?
 No, the ruling in Republic v. PLDT is only limited to the service in
that case, telecommunication – ONLY PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE – it may include – transportation, power etc – NOT
PERSONAL SERVICES
- Does Size Matter? No! Ruling in Sumulong v. Guerrero the socialize housing
project was challenged. One of the basis of challenge is that the power of ED can
be exercised large tracts of land – his property is just one hectare
1. SC held that the constitutuionaly does not depend on the size of property
to be expropriated – the ruling Guido is already abandoned
2. Any property, big or small can be expropriated
TAKING in constitutional sense
- Does it require transfer of ownership or possession? No, there is takinf even if the
title or possession to the property remains to the owner
- PEOPLE v. FAJARDO – there is an ordinance that requires a permit – any
construction shall not obstruct the view of the plaza –
- The accused in the case is till the owner, or in possession but accused cannot build
- SC held that there is already a taking. Not just a regulation. Any beneficial use of
the property is taking in eminent domain
- In Republic v. PLDT mere imposition in the property is taking. Entitled to just
compensation
- In Republic v. Vda de Castellvi SC enumerated requisites
1. Must enter in the private property
2. More than momentary period
3. Must be under a warrant or colorable title
4. For public use
5. Taking must be in such a way to oust owner or deprive him of
beneficial use
- Vda De Castelvi: Owner longer willing to renew the lease
1. When does taking start?
 During there is lease – momentary period is lacking – because only
for 1 year
 Last requisite lacking – property owner still collecting rent
2. Taking happened at time of filing of expropriation
- Comelec Space – SC held that there must be a just compensation, paper is a
private party- there is taking
- For Television and broadcast space – the time is only a regulation of frequency
and airwaves remained to be property of the states – does not amount to takinf

“Public Use”
- must be use by the public? Tradional
- Sumulong v. Guerreoro – low cost housing
1. Challenging the constitutionality because only the benificiaries can use
2. Applied in this case Public use (expanded) Sc: any advantage direct or
indirect to the public. No need that it shall be use by any person, as long as
the property will redound to the benefit. Lack of housing is a social ill.
There is an indirect advantage in social housing in the case because
addressing social problem
- Manosca case – Iglesi ni Kristo –
1. Even if the use of property is beneficial to a religious organization the
property was not taken for religious significant but because of the
contribution of Felix Manalo in formation of Philippine Society
LAST REQUISITE: JUST COMPENSATION
Is not only the fair market value, it is the full and fair value of property at the time
of taking, taken from the doses suffered by the owner. Aside from FMV there are other
considerations. Promptness of payment, improvements, capacity, the potential capacity
The determination is a judicial prerogative. Assistance of not more than 3 commissioners

Sumulong v. Guerrero
- Arguing that there is estoppel – tax valuation shall be considered because they
- Doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied when there is a law – there is a specific
constitutional provision in determining just compensation
- The tax valuation happened several yrs ago. Valuations was fixed on generalities
not based on condition
- Can congress enact a law?
1. EPZA v. Dulay PD by Marcos which provides 2 valuation – the lower
value – SC held that this is unconstitutional because it encroach the
judicial power – it is always the court who shall establish just
compensation
2. Not more than commissioner – cannot dispense except if parties have
agreed of value of property
- Who owns after the finality? Still the owner!
- What is the remedy if the govt failed to pay JC? Republic v. Lim
1. Within 5 years, the owner may recover physical possession
2. This doctrine is an exception , still old rule– only be implemented when
the reason for the promulgation is present—
3. In this case, construction of airport for armed forces – 57 yrs after the
finality of order of expropriation – government has been ling delayed – so
the court pay within 5 yrs
4. Old rule: Non payment of JC not entile recovery of physical possession-
should be demand payment. Not recovery
5. Ex: Juan dela cruz property—construct expressway – within 5 yrs nagawa
na does it mean kailangan na ibalik upon failure to pay JC
 Ruling in Lim case, shall only be implemented if within 5 years the
government failed to pay nd there is an implied or express
abandonment of the public use
 In Lim case, after 57 yrs there was only 13 structures – residential
– no airport – That’s why court said to return the property
 SO IF HINDI – DEMAND PAYMENT + interest + damaged

TAXATION

What is the principle behind? Lifeblood theory

- Liberally construed in favor of the government
- The purpose must be public
- Pascual v. Sec of Public works: The use of property is not for public purpose
1. In taxation public purpose – must be direct and exclusive
2. Even if the use of public fund will only benefit specific individual, does
not mean it is not for public purpose
Does the constitution prohibit double taxation?

Double taxation- imposition of same tax twice

 Punzalan Case – No double taxation because one is imposed by LGU and one
is imposed by national government
- valid as long as does not violate principle of taxation
1. Sec 28 or art 6 – the principles of taxation is uniform and equitable
Ancheta Case
Uniformity in taxation – persons or things similarly situated shall be taxed at the
same rate wherever they may be found
Automibile in manila and qc same tax

Equity in taxation – burden in taxation imposed on those who have capacity pay – more
income more tax

Does consti prohibit regressive?

Congress is mandated only to evolve a progressive system. It is ideal but constitution
does not prohibit the congress enacting tax laws which is regressive

Sison v. Ancheta

- Power to tax includes the power to destroy

1. Tax as an instrument of police power
2. Can be used to discourage certain activities
 Ex: Syntaxes – excessive rate
- Taxation shall be uniform and equitable and should not be arbitrary or
confiscatory
1. If tax use for revenue

Sec 28 Art 6 –Bills Exempting taxation - All the members of congress ½ plus 1 of
total sit
Of congress – majority
Lldoc v. Commissioner – only applicable to property tax or any other taxes
- not tax exempt
Abra Valley College Definition of “actually, directly and exclusively” to be exemt from
taxation – includes incidental use
- 1st floor –marketing – not exempt
- 2nd floor living quarter of director – incidental to educational purpose – exmpt
- ownership of property relevant? (province of abra case) – when the roman
catholic church question the assessment – mere presention of title will vest
exempt? Ownership is not relevant – the main consideration is the USE
1. example for lease to roman catholic owned by Juan- exempt
2. tac on property not the owner
-
BILL OF RIGHTS
- Due process clause –GR: wording of the constitution is in the precise matter;
worfing here intentionally kept vague
1. Ynot: tried to define but delegate laurel contradict – resilience is the best
virtue of due process
 2. SC refuse to give definition- to do so will constrict them in
implementation of the consti guarantee as the need arises
3. Constitution itself gives a general characterization
4. Jusice frankfurter : embodiment sporting of idea of fairplay
5. Justice Fernardo: Obedience to the dictate of justice and responsiveness to
supremacy of reason
6. Magna Carta Libertatum: No freeman shall be taken but by the lawful
judgment
7. Law that hears before condemn

What is the effect of violation of due process?

If procedural
If Substantive
Anag v. Comelec – gun was confiscated in possession of the driver- for
delivery to sergeant of arms – transmitted to the comelec – included anag
to information. Anag claims violation of due process cos no preliminary
investigation
 Although preliminary investigation is statutory in concept. It is an
essential part of criminal due process
 It is a procedural aspect of due process
 The right of pet to procedural due process was violated – effect was
INVALIDATION of the information
 The law remains valid
Substative Aspect
Ynot case

 In determining; The court will look into the the intrinsic validty
 If law is an exercise of police power, determine whether it complied
with Lawful subj and means
 There was no lawful means – intirinsically invalid
 If violated, the law itself shall be invalid
 SC summarize: Strike but hear me first
o Right to be informed
o Minimum requirement of due process is NOTICE and
HEARING

Philippine Phosphate case

Hearing- opportunity to explain
- either by pleadings, position, papers

Admin Agencies – power to promulgate rules and regulation

Are they required to
Philippine communication satellite v. Alcuas:
Franchise of philcomsat applied for extension – MTC: decrease the rate cos its earning
too much
MTC issued the order without notice and hearing – not valid
SC: Rule making power of Admin agencies in
A/L/E power – no need for prior notice and haring
Quasi Judicial - Agencies must comply with twin requirements – notice and hearing

There was an order by LTFRB directed to TMVs to reduce rates

There was also order for grab to surrender excess collection
Are orders valid ( No notice and hearing)?
1st yes exercise of A/E/QL – the order is general and prospective
2nd is a quasi judicial – the effect is immediate

What are the essential requisites of criminal due process

Alonte Case: A rape case

-posecution move to transfer the venue
- Offended party executed affidavit of desistance
- The judge or RTC Manila (where it was transferred) sched a hearing to know
voluntariness
- No evidence presented by defense – because they said they don’t twant to
- Convicted the accused – Respondent said they were not given opportunity to be
heard? Yes! They are because the right to a hearing is specific – on the desistance –
regarding voluntariness and due executin
-- the waiver into one issue does not mean waive also the other issue

Admin proceedings:
7 cardinal primary
Ang tinay case:
Rules : check
1. right to hearing
2. tribunal must consider
3. must have something to support decision
4. substantial evidence – reasonable mind might
acceot
5. render decision base on the evid presented
6. Consider the case based on independent
7. Must render

Ateneo v. Capulong
There are only 5 requisites in school disciplinary and asministrative proceedings:
1. Informed in writing
2. Opportunity to be heard
3. Informed of the evidence
4. Present evidence
5. Consider the evidence presented

Right to cross-examination is not one of the requisites

Romualdez Case
Void for vagueness rule – a statute suffers from v 4v id it lacks comprehensible standards
of men of common intellignec emust necessarily guess to its meaning
 deprives the person a fair notice of the conduct to avoid
 gives the law enforcement and unbridle discretion – flexing of
government muscle
-VIOLATES DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND VALID DELEGATION
SC discuss Oberbreadth doctrine – decrease the governmental purpose to prevent or
regulate an activity which is subject to state regulation may not be achieve by means of
sweep unnecessarily and broadly and thereby encroaching or evading protected areas of
freedom
-- An act cannot be done by sweep unnecessarily all protected freedom

SPARK v. QC case involving curfew ordinances

 Manila and Caloocan curfew was struck down – because of the
application of pverbreadth principle – because it was not narrowly
drawn – in their objective to safeguard – there are certain vild
exeptions not included in the list. – it is already intruding in protected
liberties – those having simbang gabi are covered
o Even if right of free expression – they are still coveres
o Too broad encroaches on liberties
EQUAL PROTECTION
- means persona nd things similarly situates shall be treated alike both as to right
conferred and liabilities impose
- DP and EP difficult to determine what should be applied

Birallgo cases
Arbitrariness in general – assail in due process
Unjust or illegal discrimination EP
Ep is against: 2 evils
1. undue flavor or class or individual legislation
2. Unjust discrimination – oppression and inequality

People v. Vera – abt probation law

On its face the provison is not discriminatory
In the case similarly situated not treated alike
No difference between a Law that discriminates and a law that allows discrimination –
both violates Equal protection of the law

Biralgo Case
Laundry business made out of bricks – when the law was passed almost 90 percent has
wooden bldg.
SC: the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance yet if applied by public
officers with an evil eye and unequal eye – sunstantial
EP – applied does not apply equally
Can the court says

Villegas case:

The law is unconsti for violation of Equal protection because it applies equally
 employment fees in aliens
 Uniform employment fee – without regard to conditions
 UNCONSTITUIONAL for failure to recognize material differences
 Uniform application to persons or things not similarly situated also
violates the EPL
 EPL – requires equality among equals
 Constitution does not prohibit classification
 In classification, the same characterisitcs that binds the grp also set
them apart form other grs
Consti only accept reasonable classification
1. Classif must be substantial distinction
2. Germane
3. Not only present aso future
4. Apply equally to memebers of same class

Ichong Case abt retail trade – classification on citizenship – retail trade imbudes with
interest – SC sustained the classification
 Allows American – can we say that undue favor? No! because there is
material difference than other aliens – parity treaty – they are like
Filipino citizaens

Can age be a basis? Spark v. QC – Yes substantial classification – because they are
minors because minors are
Sex? Yes! How do we classify? Male and Female! Base on gender – PASEI v. Drilon—
Prohibited deployment to female of ofw

People v. Cayat—prohibit to Non Christian tribe to drink intoxicated drink because they
are more violent – degree of civilization is substantial

Can we say that there is strae decisis in those 4 – civilization, age, degree of civilization,
gender – NO stare decisis does not apply! Reasonableness depends on factual
circumstances

PASEI

General guidelines – Justice Fernando

The better rule is only their validity if young, old, women are single out.- Not if they are
to be discriminated
International case: Local professors are paid lower
SC did not apply Equal protection because it is only available to govt – similar concept

Must be raised on the pleadings

Lis Mota – relevant to the main issue
Are laws challenged in the equal protection of the law comply with the actual case of
controversy (does not allow speculation)

People v. Vera: Probation act does not apply nationwide – does it involve injury? No but
the case assume jurisdiction

Ormoc sugar – centrifugal sugar – other entity might engage in production of centrifugal
– Speculative pa din – the reasonable

Law must apply equally to all class

-Biralgo case – Eo 1 is unconstitutional –because arroyo administration is just a member
of a class – to single out Arroyo Admin to the rest of the class

Doctrine of under exclusiveness – enact another law is the remedy

 SC did not apply this because It is applicable
 Failure of the law to include past administration is not mere
inadvertence
 The insufficiency

Unreasonable Search and Seizure

First part – Consti guarantee
Second part – Requisites

Consti: Only UNREASONABLE searches and seizures

Alvarez v. CFI
SC ruled that
Reasonable – lawful
Unreasonable – Unlawful

Stonehill v. Diokno
42 search warrants
-Petitioners who are officers of the corp
-SC: can only question those warrant in their home –
- Unreasonabl S and S is a personal right –
-- corporation – shall be armed with a board resolution
-- corp is a separate personality
People v. Marti – Mr reyes inspected the parcels- Marijuana
 Not covered by the constitutional guarantee—applies only to
government and law enfocrment officer
 Guarantee is not extended Not to private officer other public officer
 Law Enforcement Officer—only those who has duty to arrest and
investigate
 Bill of rights governs the relationship of individual and the state
 Cited fr. Bernas: The protection of fundamental liberty is the essence
of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection
against the state
 What the bill of rights does is create inaccessible zones to thom with
power
 Sec 2 art 3 cannot be invoked if Unreasonable search by private
individual
 Mere presence of NBI – look and see – does not make it a search of
law enforcement

Sec 2 art 3 Congress cannot withdraw the power of the court to issue wa and sw

Search Warrant
Sec 1, Rule 126 Order in writing issued under the name of the Philippines signe by judge
directed to officer commanding to

Search warrant
2 duties:
1. Obligation to look
2. 2. Bring the property to the court
3.
Immovable cannot be subject of SW – the law provides personal propertie

For how long is it valid: 10 days from date of issuance regardless of receipt
Warrant of arrest: valid until served

Rule 113 – make a report or return – 10 days from receipt – what happened in

UNILAB case –
Search and seizures of Revicon products
Unilab participated in the proceedings
SC said sw are not criminal proceeding – not directed against any person – it is a node of
discovery – John doe – objective is to obtain property
SW is neither a civil proceeding or administrative
Required evidence: probable causs
SUI GENERIS PROCEEDING
Requisites of Valid Warrant?
1. Based on probable cause
 means such facts and circ antecedents to the warrant which would lead
a reasonably prudent man
MATARIN v. Judge Roman
- Search ewarrant: that the personal prop is owned by Jr; Warrant of arrest named
Manatarin Sr. not Jr
- Warrants of arrest and Sw different probabilities
- WA – probabilities: that a crime has been committed and probability that
person committed
- SW: Probabilities: objects sought are in relation to the crime and that they
may be found in the sought to be searched
- Persons named in SW may be diff frm oersons named in WA

Judge must personally determine

Soliven v. Makasiar
-Libel complaint of Aquino – WA was issued – relied on the prosecutor
- In issuing a warrant. The judge need not to personally examine the complainant enoght
that he personally evaluated the report of public prosecutor and affidavit
- 1988 case
-Only applies to WA
- there is already anatecedent proceedings – complainat already appeared in Pubilc
prosecutor

Silva Case
-not enough that
-Must conduct searching questions and answers in sw
-Must personally appear
- Applies to SW – judge cannot issue if complainant and witnesses
- Stricter because no complaint yet

Warrant must be issued by the JUDGE

--taking into custody to answer criminal offense
-- take custody of personal property use for prosecution of an offense

Salazar v. Achacoso
- invalidate provision of the labor code that judge can be the only one who can
issue warrant

Harvey v. Santiagio
 bureau of Immigration can issue warrant
 Warrants by Administrative officer should be different from those
reserved with judges
  But other warrants not intended for prosecution may be issued by other
officer

Harvey v. Santiago
 Pedophile -- in flagrante de licto
 17 are for deportation
 they were already detained
 Commissioner of Bureau of Immigration issued WA
 Purpose of the warrant is to execute the deportation
 Execution of final and executory
 Applies to any admin officer

Under oath or affirmation

-Alternative
Alvarez v. CFI
Oath –any affirmation – outward pledge – made under immediate sense of responsibility
to god
Affirmation— if do not have a belief in God
Sec 4 of art 7
Oath – “swear” so help me god
Affirmation – I do solemnly affirm

Test of sufficient oath – may be held liable for perjury for

 He said that it comes from reliable information
 Reliable info not enough
 Should be personal knowledge
 My source is the pope – it is not enough that applicant is convinced –
must be the judge – cannot be hearsay; only if based on personal
knowledge

Particularity in description

- Means that warrants describe that in such a way that police officer can identify
place to ne seized and person to be arrest
- If not particularly described – but the police officer incidentally know with
personal knowledgewho he is “Boy tigas” – Officer knows who he is – Police
cannot use any discretion or use any personal knowledge

People v. Del Rosario

They acccidentally found an unlicensed fire arm

SW: only drugs
Is it subj to confiscation? Is is admissible
--The gun is subj to confiscation , it is an article in violation of law
-- But not admissible – not included in the warrant –
-- SW not a sweping authority empowering a raiding party to conduct a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any item not included
--- they discover the unlicensed fire arm while opening the drawers.
-- Not plain view

Warantlesss SEARCHES AND ARREST

Still reasonable even no warrant

Warantless Arrest
1. In flarante
2. Hot pursuit – Just committed, had personal knowledge
3. Arrest of prisoner

Sec 5 rule 113 – may also be implemented by a private person

Warrantless Arrest
1. After escape or rescue
2. Bondsman – to execute a final decision
3. Arrest of person out on bail

In flagrante – must be done in the presence – has committed, committing, about to

commit

People v. Sucro
In his presence – sees although at the distance, as long as use any of his faculties – sense
of smell, taste
- must be no apprecaiable time bet commission and arrest
- No longer performing the act? Cannot arrest except continuing crime (Umil Case)
- SC said in continuing crime like subversion – still deemed committin – he is in
the hospital being treated
- This crime is against the government – safety and security of the government
- Kidnapping/illegal detention also – kidnaped – transported—element of his crime
is scattered through time

Hot pursuit arrest

 as long as the officer has probable cause based on personal knoelwdge
– ex: He is the one who conducted investigation
Co Case: Crime committed 6 days ago cannot be considered “just committed”
People v. Rodrigueza: In the afternoon they conducted test buy – report to the superior
then at night arrest
SC held: when they left to report – the chain of event has broken—must be connected
with unbroken links

The determining facor is the link between commission and arrest

Chain of events must be unbroken.
Chase lasted for 30 days – still hot pursit

WARENTLESS SEARCHES
LUZ V. PEOPLE Violation of traffic ordinance
--while the traffic ticket was being prepared
-- napansin na tingin ng tingin so take out everything in his pocket
SC held:
In order that there be consented search
1. Consent specific
2. Consent unequivocal
3. Intelligently given
4. Free from coercion
Voluntary given: 9 factors:

Age, Public or secluded etc

Mere fact that did not object in the police prescient: not voluntary – would be futile
To be considered as arrest the law violated must be punishable bu imprisonment not
merely a fain
When apprehended for traffic violation—not imprisonment

Malacad v.CA
-Acting suspiciously – eyes moving too fast
- Search incident to lawful arrest
- there ust be valid prior arrest

What is the extent? Body and within Immediate control

Espano v. CA
 only the items in his possession
 Incident to lawful arrest – house is beyond the permissible

People v. Musa – Buy bust – arrested in his living room -- Police search the kitchen
several meters and found a plastic containing marijuana
 covered by search incident to lawful arrest—“within the reach of
accused”
 SC held its purpose is to protect the law enforcement to weapons
 Prevent destroying evidence

There must be a lawful arrest

 People v. peralta – found a perforated bill while waiting for bus
 The accused has already waive questioning the validity of arrest
 How bout the search? Waiver is only to the validity of arrest not the
validity of search
Stop and Frisk
Terry v. Ohio

Stop as distinguish from arrest

Frisk – only outer clothing

Malacat
2 objectives:
1. Crime prevention
2. Personal safety

- No need for probable cause – there must be a GENIUNE reason based on training
of law enforcement that crime may ba at foot.

Stop and Search

- Posadas v. CA
- Police were observing the activities when police approach the accused run –
ammunitions found I buri bag
- There must be probable cause- reasonably discreet and prudent man
- extent is greater – within his immediate control and body of the accused

Unilab Case – whether the seizure of disodrin – in plain view

1. Prior justification – property situated

2. Discovered inadvertently
3. Incriminating obj is readily apparent
A and B in a house police officer – they went to a party—while they were in the house
they saw drugs drugs. Can they effect of seizure in plain view?
NO! They do not have the right to be there for an initia intrusion. They violated privacy.

Plain View
2nd requisite – discover inadvertently without conducting any search meaning they must
not open anything – must be readily apparent

People v. Musa – they saw a plastic hanging in the kitchen – what is apparent is the
plastic
 incriminating must be apparent not merely the container thereof’
 No manifestion at all
Suppose that there’s a note “marijuana inside”

--must be apparent is the evidence itself—not merely suggestion

Unilab case
They saw a disudrin – in a glass
It is not incriminating by itself – nothing wrong with displaying disudrin—the
incriminating character must be readily apparent
  the ony time that they are counterfeited – when the DFA tested
 Not readily apparent when they seize

What standard: ONLY Probable cause that the object they observe is contraband they can
effect seizure

Custom searches: Even outside customs. Except dwelling!!

PAPA v. MAGO –

What items? Only dutiable goods! Only items for export

Regular checkpoints == only visual search, -- use flashlight, turn on light – cannot
required

Extensive checkpoint – if there is probable cause that the owner has committed the crime

Aerial Saturation drive: Male person required to strip off clothes

Guazon v. De villa case: Not rule on constitutionality
Searches in Exigencies – rights of persons shall still be respected. Cannot be required to
take off their shirt

SEC 3 Privacy limited to correspondence and communication

Ople v. Torres
Sc held while there is no consti provision for right of privacy but consti created zones of
privacy
- there are areas which cannot be entered by the government
- limited government recognize limited
- Connecticut case: various provisions creates zones of privacy
- In Ople: enumerated which creates zones; Sec 1,2,3,17 Due process, Pcc, USS,
rught to travel, abode, assiciaton
2 categories of privacy (dissini cases)
Informational -- 2 aspects; right not disclose information regarding private matters; right
to live freely without interference
Decisional privacy – right to be independent in making certain decision
- govt cannot interfere in decision

Locational – already embraced in informational

OPLEv v. Torres – national ID system

-SC: 2 test if there is reasonable expectiation
1. Subjective phase – in his conduct he exhibited expectatio
2. Such expectation is accepted by society and is reasonable
In the case at bar, A.O. No. 308 may have been impelled by a
worthy purpose, but, it cannot pass constitutional scrutiny for it
is not narrowly drawn. They must satisfactorily show the
presence of compelling state interests and that the law, rule or
regulation is narrowly drawn to preclude abuses.
The Court first recognized that computer data constitutes a
personal property, entitled to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’ Constitution requires
the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it seeks to
seize a personal property or to block a form of expression.

spams are a category of commercial speech, which does not

receive the same level of protection as other constitutionally
guaranteed forms of expression ,”but is nonetheless entitled to
protection.” It ruled that the prohibition on transmitting unsolicited
communications “would deny a person the right to read his emails,
even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.” Accordingly,
the Court declared Section4(c)(3) as unconstitutional.

Vivares v. St Theresa College

Uploaded in fb account wherein they are under their undergarments – shown to teachers –
admin
 those pics daw are private
 SC in online social networking, privacy is no longer grounded in
reasonable expectation;
 There is no privacy in social networking
 There are certain levels of privacy settings (there is disclaimer in fb)
there is no absolute privacy in “only me” settings
 The students have not shown any indication that such pics is private
 If they failure to protect their privacy how can court

Belo v. Guevara

Those statements daw are private only for my friends

Sc held: No, even if for friends – not exhibited reasonable privacy
People v. marti
Bill of rights can only be invoked to govt

Does that mean that the entire bill?

Zulueta v. CA: took some pics and took some correspondences
- a person does not shed his privacy. Constitutional guarantee forever available
- Sec 3 applied in private persons
- May be violated in sec 3
There may be an instance where characteristic of paper and communication
Ex: letter
Can we say that It is a paper under sec 2, or sec 3
 both are applicable
 That evidence is admissible and inadmissible
 Depends as purpose – if offered as object evidence – inadmissible
 If as a documentary evidence—sec3 – the contents of the letter
o There is a violation of sec 3
Laws also creates zones of privacy
Ex: prying into one’s neighbor, bank secrecy law, anti war tapping act

Supposing while conducting a lecture – recorded

Navvaro v. CA – discussion bet victim and police officer was being tape recorded by
companion– victim took pictures—
SC held that RA 4200 Prohibits unauthorized recording of private communication: on the
case the conversation was when other people were around. The 2 parties did not intend
the convo to be private
 Supposing they have a private communication
 Ramirez v. CA
o There is a violation even if one of the party recorded
o It shall be unlawful not being authorize to tap any or device
o Use of the word any applies even to parties
Gaanan v. ICA

- at the time they were discussing

- in the other line the lawyer was listening without consent of the other party
- this does not violate ra 4200 extension phone is not enumerate “any other device”
- Catch all phrase cannot be applied – not similar to those first mention
- Eusdem generis
- No law prohibiting, no crime
- While it does not violate ra 4200
- Sec 3 art 2 is violated then the lawyers statement in inadmissible in evidence
- There is violation of right to privacy

P2. Sec 3 Exlusionary principle

 only deals with primary evidence
 evid obtained in violation of constitution shall be inadmissible
Fruit of the poisonous tree
 deals
 Sec 3 art 3, “any evidence” not only primary but also derivative
evidence
Non exclusionary doctrine
- impose criminal or admin penalty
- evidence will still be admissible
- It was abandoned

Sec 4 Protects 5 rights

Free Speech
Free expression
Free press
Free Assembly
Free Petition

Bayan v. Ermita – enjoys primacy

Constitutes the very bonds of a functional quality without which all other fights will be
meaningless
all other rights in art 3 will be meaningless
will become unprotected

why are they treated in one

Reyes v. Bagatsing: while these rights are not identical, they are insepaerable

Constitution: “No law shall be passed”

Sec 4 available against violation against the government
Private acts are not covered

PBM v. Bloomingmills –
 assembly against pasig police – all who participated sismiss
Malabanan case
- gregorio araneta school
- Students who participated were suspended for 1 yr
- Too heavy penalty

private entity is involved in such cases

 in thes cases it was discussed only the importance of these rights to
determine the reasonableness of penalties
 SC is saying is that the penalty in unreasonable
 BUT ONLY AGAINST GOVT

Diocese of Bacolod case

- team buhay and patay tarps
- SC dissected sec 4 by defining the extent
- 1st phrase “no law” – applies to all governmental acts
1. Act of the mayor (primisas case)
2. Comelec (sws case)
3. Letter of comelec (diocese of BCD)
- Expression
1. Is more expansive than speech
2. Fr Bernas: yes we can include it
3. Speech is not only limited to vocal, conduct sometimes are considered –
symbolic speech
4. Applies to the entire continuum of the speech – even conduct and inaction
as a manner of symbolic communication
5. Consti is broader in scope
- Several theories or school of thoughts was also discussed
1. The right to participate in public affairs including right to criticize
government action
 Theory on deliberative democracy – open, substantial and ethical
dialogue on public affairs is a critical and indeed a defining
Feature of a democratic polity. It includes a collective decision
making with the participation of all who may affected by the
decision. Anchored on sovereignty resides to the people
 Speech the promotes dialogues on public affair or airs out
grievances or political discontent shall be protected and
encouraged
 Government is accountable
 Bernas: right to think is beginning of freedom; freedom is
beginning from thought. Speech is the start of freedom
 Criticism is protective
 Must be specific and constructive not generalize
 US v, Bustos –
o The interest of society and good governance –
discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty
o SC said: that public officer shall not be too thin
skinned
 Free speech was likened to a scalpel—
purpose of using scalpel is to expose to
disease and cure– purpose of criticism is to
expose the social ill and cure it
o Is it applicable to judicial officers? Yes
 May criticism be applied to members of SC?
 Can we call them thieves? In US v. BUSTOS: the
guarantees includes to criticize JUDICIAL CONDUCT – it
is a matter of public concern – the admin of justice is a
matter of vital public concern – if people cannot criticize it
in the same manner as p.officer, public opinion will be
muzzled - it will be tyranny
 It is not a right but a duty
 
 People v. Alarcon
 Pemissible accusation of judicial
 There is distinction with terminated cases and pending
cases
 In terminated cased free for all, whatever can
 For pending decisions – there must be restriction—
newspaper publication tending to obstruct, embarance or
influence administering cases may constitute contempt
sumamrrily punished
 In this case it is still pending in court of Appeals – the
criticism is in RTC – so far as rtc is concern it is already
terminated –
 “finally terminated” not require that it is already final and
executor – requires that it cannot be changed
 Right of citizen to criticize of govt officer
o They cannot invoke right of privacy
Ayer v, Judge Capulong
--Aside from govt officials – Public figure can also be subject to criticism
-- Public figure definition – a person by his fame, accomplishment has becomes a
-- they became celebrities
- lesser right of privacies – they sought publicity and consented to
it; their doings and lives became public concern; press has the duty to inform public
concer
- Enrile is a public officer

Borjal v. CA – private individual involved in public issue can be criticized

In a blind item soliciting donation – Wenceslao file libel
- consultant of first national conference of LTO therefore not a publiv figure
- Sc said that even you are not a public official or a public figure, people can talk
abt you if your work involves public issue.
Activities of Alvin Balag – he is involved in public issue

SECOND SCH OF THOUGHT – Free speech must be encourage in market place of

Ideas
Justice Homes:

Iglesia ni Kristo case: X rated by mtrcb

SC: In a democratic there is no truth. To be truth it must be able to compete with other
truth

3rd Free speech must be encouraged because it enhances human dignity

Ph Blooming Mills:
SC: Right under sec 4 is human right – imprescriptible primary over property right
Property rights can be regulated (lawful means and lawful subject), in Sec 4 not enough
(LM and LS) – there must be clear and present danger or substantial governmental
interest under o brien test

4th Free speech is a marker of

5th free speech is suppose to protect individuals and minorities against majorities
2 grps:
1. Citizenry at large who may be oppressed by public official
2. Minority whi may be oppressed by majority of electorate
Majority does not need any protection

6th Safety valve theory

Reyes v. bagatsing
 SC compared society to a dam
 If there is no safety valve to vent out – once the dam explode may
result to violence
 Case involving the assembly in front of US Embassy
 SC: Bill of rights is the child of enlightenment
 If cannot vent out in peaceful manner, they may result to violence

Can Be Regulated (sec 4)

Political speech – discuss public affairs
and commercial speech – promote commercial activities
The SC is that free speech’s core is political speech – they enjoy greater protection

Diocese of BCD:
Depends on the nature of regulation:

Content based – regulates the substance of speech or speaker

Govt must show that there is clear and present danger – prove that there
is a substantive evil ehich right to prevent – both substantial
Other cases: Dangerous tendency test is not enough. Sc said that fear od serious injury
alone is not enough to justify regulation of right to free speech
Content neutral – reg the incidents – time, manner
 Only needs to pass intermediate test on O brien test-
o 4 conditions – within constitutional power
 Furter govt interest
 Incidental suppression
 No more than what is necessary to achieve legitimate

SWS case: Prohibition of release of survey

SC said that there are several speeches not protected:
The lewd, obscent, profane , libelous, insulting and fighting words and words by mere
utterance insights immediate breach of peace are unprotected speeches not covered by sec
4

Pita vs. CA obscenity

SC still cannot give categorical definition

But provided guidelines in determinging

People v. Kotinger: a lit is obscene if it has corrupting tendency

Katigbak – dominance theme test – isolated passage alone cannot be dereminitive factor

Miller v. CA test

Court will determine

INVOLVE there is Pinoy Playboy –Mayor burned the case

 determination of obscenity must be based on literature involved cannot
be on past issues – all the copies were burned

ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Necessary consequence of republican
A: Meet peaceably for consultation
P: person can apply to govt without fear of penalty for redress of grieviances

Primisa v. Frugoso
The power to regulate does not authorize mayor to prohibit assembly
Mayor can only regulate time, manner

Do students have the right to A and P?

Malabanan case: Yes

Students do not shed rhei right in school house gate
Must not disrupt class and violate other rights

How bout employees in Private sector

PBM case: Yes! Enjoys primacy they are not only civil but political

Bayan v. Ermita
Calibrated Preemptive Response

- the standard req by bp 889 – pres cannot modify the law

- must be strucked down
 - Pet contends that bp 880 is content based used the term:lawful” questioning” –
means that lawful activities are protected, also other matter
- Therefore it is content based regualation

NON-ESTABLISHMEN OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

Estrada v. Escritor

Under the non-establishment clause –the state will not do anything to establish or
influence religion - neutral government
--Government in Action

Free exercise clause – the government will do everything in its power to exercise
religious freedom
 must perform to ensure religious freedom of citizen

In 2006 religion in Estrda v. Escritor

Both – not to influence religious beliefs and

Religion Definition (aglipay ) Reigion is the profession of belief

Estrada v. Escritor – a system of belief if complies w/ 4th requisite
 belief in god or some parallel belief – even if not God
 involve a moral code
 it
 it must involve associatiobal tie
Wall of separation has 2 concepts
- separationist approach
1. Strict separationist – absolute impregnable wall –activities of church shall
be only be done by church
2. Strict neutrality – religion cannot be use to basis to discriminate other
religion
 WHATEVER APPLIES TO secular activity shall be APPLIED TO
A REGLIGION NO difference at all
 Should work also on sat
- benevolent neutrality – a wall of accommodation
 a religious may be accommodated and may be exempted from the
coverage of mandatory law – civil, crim, admin
 Mandatory – accommodation of religious activity based on
constitutuion ex: p3 properties – religious purposes
 Permessive – exemption of religious activities because of
public policy
 VICTORIANO CASE: Union security clasue
- Under the consti benelovent neutrality –
Aglipay v. Ruiz – in commemoration
- not all use of of funds with religious purpose if it has secular purpose
Garces Case – wooden image

LEMON TEST – to validly use funds with religious color consti permissible
 secular legislative purpose
 neither promotes no inhibit religion
 not foster excessive entanglent
if all are present, then constistutinal

2 aspects of religious freedom (iglesia case)

1. Freedom to believe - absolute
2. Freedom to act in one’s belief – subject to regulation
INC was given x rating by mtrcb – they said that no authority because they were issued in
exercise of religious freedom—then outside regulatory power of government

SC: provisons on religious freedom terminates disabilities but did not create new liberty.
It creates religious liberty but not creates civil immunities

essence of this is guarantee freedom to confrmity in a religious dogma not freedom from
freedom not conformity to law because of religious dogma this means that once religious
activity violates a law state can interfere.

Case of Ang Dating daan – television show where vro ellie Soriano said something –
filed a libel case—issue is 2 religious org

SC held here that the issue is violation of law and not who has better doctrine. Court said
that if exercise of religion destroys, the court shall interfere and not stand still

ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR

Whether the arrangement between resp and permitted is morally permissible?

Arrangement is sanctioned by the religion

SC said: standard to be applied is secular – to prohibit must be lawfully immoral
Can it be excepted: The SC applied compelling state interest – viewed from benevolent
neutrality whether the religious practice can be exempted from provisions of mandatory
law.

Under the compelling state interest test (3 questions – if all answer is yes – the
governmental regulation can be applied to religious activities—if one no then excepted

The law sought to be applied is RPC, admin code requiring to live moral life, ethical
standards
3 QUESTIONS:
1. HAVE THE STATUTES CREATED A BURDEN ON RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM? YES—RESPONDENT has to choose which to follow law or
religion
2. Is there a sufficient compelling interest? Gov’t failed to proved – there must be
specific interest showing that there is a need to regulate the activity
3. Did the state in achieving use less intrusive means? It means that governmental
action is the only way to achieve its purpose
a. Example is the case of Ebralinag: Students who belong the Jehovah
refused to slaute the flag, refuse to sinf– they were suspended
i. SC said that the objective of the law is to inculcate love of country
or patriotism. SC said that if it is the purpose of the law is it the
only purpose? SC said that there is least intrusive means – like
teach in class
b. In Estrada case: is it the only way to preserve sanctity of marriage,
preserve dignity of public office? There is other way to achieve the
government objective. It was held in this case – exempted from coverage
of rpc, admin code
The supreme court ruled that they shall be exempt activity from RPC, revised
administrative code, of ethical standards

Sec 6 Liberty of Abode and right to travel

1st sentence: The liberty of abode shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court.
Does it mean that only lawful valid restriction? No. there is others. Consti said “within
the limits by law” – it can be limited by lawful order or by court

In the deliberations of consti commission.

- Liberty to abode and right to travel specifically split to eliminate the practice of
hamleting? It is the isolation of one of community to another country – That is
why they deoarated

Marcos v. Manglapus
 Right to travel
 Pet filed a petition to return to the ph
 Sc said right to travel only covers : Leave the Philippines and go to
another country AND freedom of movements within the Philippines
 Right to return to one’s country is not included
 The SC said while it is not covered to right to travel, it is covered by
international conventions. UDDHR : generally accepted principle of
IL – they are deem part of legal system – nonetheless protected by the
constitutuion
 SC said yes, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and GAPIL, but
the level of protection is different, the right to travel can only be
 impaired in the interst of national security, public safety and public
health as may be provided to by law.
 But the right to return to one’s country can be regulated as long as the
regulation is not arbitrary so which means that the level of protection
and regulation is different bet 2 rights. Had the SC considered the right
to return to one’s country as part of right to travel, the order of pres
aquino would have been unconstitutional same as delima case
 In order to validly restrict the right to travel there must be a LAW
allowing the administrative officer to restrict the right to travel in the
interest of national security , public safety or public health
 In this case the petitioners were prevented to return because of an
order of the president so that is not the law contemplated by sec 6
 The law contemplated is a legislative act authorizning the president if
it were activity of right to travel. Since it is not covered by right to
travel, the order is valid cos it is not arbitraaary – Ph is in a vulnerable
state and

Genuino v. De Lima
- HDO, WLO, ADO that may be issued by SOJ through dept circular 41 –
- Ironically DO 41 was promulgated during the administration of arroyo
- Same regulation to prevent pres arroyo from leaving the ph to seek medical
assistance
- WLO same as HDO – also prevents to leave the Ph without the clearance to sec of
justicr
- One of the reasons DC 41 was unconsti – defect from vagueness – all same
- As to constitutionality the SOJ does not have the authority under the
administrative code or any other law restricting the right to travel. Since SOJ has
no authority to restrict the freedom to travel they cannot issue such WHO
Manotoc v. CA
- under 1973 consti – liberty of abode and of travel shall not be exempt
- admin agencies can validly restrice right to travel
- order was issued as a condition of right to bail
- he challenged the order of the court as rstricting
- SC said that this is inherent in power court of justice to enforce its will to parties
in controversy because judicial acts are territorial in character. To allow the
accused to leave without authority of the court that granted the bailwould be to
allow the accused to be outside jurisdiction of court and therefore he will no
longer be bound to comply with orders of court because of territoriality of judicial
processes
Silverio v. CA
- while courts can restrict the right to travel, courts can only do so in the interst of
national security, public safety, or public health
- court cannot restrict the right to travel for any other reason?
- SC said no, the power of the court to restrict the right to travel as a condition of
bail did not change whther 1873, 1935, -- this is an inherent limitation
One case
 - resp is a court stenographer
- she applied authority to travel but before approval she left for vacation
- she was subjected to admin sanction
- SC discussed the authority of SC to regulate the right to travel of the employees in
judiciary.
 There is no law that authorizes the office of court administration to
restrict right to travel. The restriction impairs the liberty of
movement
 Sc said in one case. That the memo circular issued by SC did not
violate the consti guarantee of right to travel because this is only an
admin restriction it is restriction issued by employer
 As an employer should ensure that the duties of courts will not be
impaired by absence of employees
 SC sustained the constitutionality

SEC 7 RIGHT TO INFORMATION

The consti provides “shall be recognized” recognition diff from guarantee – only affirms
a fact
Resolved in Legaspi v. CSC
- certain info were requested from civil service commission
- they claim that the eligibilities cannot be disclosed cos confidential
- Right of info not self executing because of the phrase Sec 7 “as may be provided
by law”, sec 28 “provided by law” there is a need for legislative act to be
operative
- SEC 7: SC said that every right of the people recognized as fundamental rise a
corresponding obligation on the part of those who govern to resepct and protect
the right. The recognition carries with it on the part of the government to protect
that right.
- Both are self executing, no need for implementing regulation
- “as may be provided by law” reders to reasonable imitations not to the right to full
public disclosure and information

Maya admin agencies custodians may restrict disclosure?

Legaspi v. CSC –
SC said that admin agencies has no power to restrict, ONLY REGULATE
 not prohibit
 to the extent that any damage, or loss of documents maintained by
them shall be avoided. The examination of info shall not interfere with
performance of other functions.
 To the extend equally entitled to rights shall be respected
SC said: before it Right to info and Public Disclsure be operative: 2 questions
Whether info or transaction is of public concern or public interest
Whether there is a lw prohiniting disclosure
Public interest – subject matter may people want to know because it directly affect their
lives or information insuch character that will naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary
citizen.
-- not mere curiosity --- there must be some legitimate objective

 Peole have the right to know if president is ill covered by this consti
provison
 But a citizen just because she has an interest on the subject matter
cannot demand that he be given abt sex life of the president – not
legitimate public objective (2nd requsitite)

If there is no law prohibiting and public interest.. mandatory to disclose? No not all!
Chavez case. What are the concessions
 there are certain types of information which by their very nature are
confidential in character – the government can validly withheld ---
even without law
PCGG Case:

Cannot be validly disclosed even no law

1. National security matter or other intelligence information
a. Military secrets
b. Correspondence with diplomatic representatives

2. Trade secrets and banking transactions – even without intellectual property code
protecting trade secrets, even no bank secrecy law – they are proprietary in
character
3. Criminal matters – does not refer to crim cases, i
a. it refers to law enforcement activities –
b. Info regarding:
i. Apprehension
ii. Detention
iii. Prosecution of a person who violated
CANNOT BE DISCLOSED UNTIL the actual arrest, detention, prosecution – only for a
limited period
iv. A person cannot go to PDEA to disclose to ask who are your
targets.. This info even no law
v. Once operation have been conducted, an individual can demand
right of disclosure – cana sk what happened last august
4. Other confidential information
a. Information obtained by public officers in the exercise of public function
b. Internal deliberations of supreme court
c. Closed door cabinet meetings
d. Executive sessions of both houses of congress

 EXTENDS to GOCC with orig charter regardless whether performing

proprietor or govt function
Velmonte v. Belmonte – demanding list of names who were able to obtail clean laons – is
the info of gsis covered by right of info? YES!! GOCC even proprietary function is one
of public interest or public concern – funds of gsis are coming from contributions of
public officials. – PUBLIC CONCERN OR INTEREST

Is the demand of petitioner valid?

NO! right to info does not include right to demand “list of summaries and abstract” – the
constitution only guaranty ACCESS
The custodians cannot be required to produce summaries or abstracts -- the one invoking
shall prepare

SC laid down rules:

In so far as production of documents:
SC SAID THAR FOLLOWING ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER:
(transactions and documents)
1. Court actions – result of raffle of the cases (only parties and
counsel) Except if matter is disciplinary involving judges
lawyer in crim cases life imprisonment or higher, action
taken by the court in each case included in the court’s
agenda in matters and cases ending before him.
2. Court deliberations – cannot demand the minutes
3. Court records which are pre decisional or deliberative
under deliberative process privilege – a communication is
pre decisional if it precedes to the decision to which it
relates in short when it attempts to reach a conclusion—
notes of the justices
a. Deliberative – part of the give and take of
negotiation process – when disclosure of info will
discourage a candid discussion among members of
SC –
4. Confidential info Obtained by judges, justices in exercise
of public function– may be subject to penal
5. Court records/cases pending in decision (prior to
promulgation) – SUBJUDICE rule – until they are publicly
issued--- officialy issued if final copy of the resolution is
placed inside the envelope addressed to the parties and
transmitted to the record section division
6. Doctrine of Comity and inter departmental courtesy –
highest official of department are exempted from
compulsory processes – cannot attend internal proceeding
of the other
a. The president only in executive by extension the
executive secretary –
b. All the justices
 c. Associate justices and chief justice
d. Congress – all members of congress are covered by
this principle because they are collegial
This belongs to the SC as a privileged no one can waive this
Serreno wants to attend - SC said nobody can waive this,
only SC en banc!

PBM – assembly and petition

SSS – strike

How do we determine

First standard – relationship between the speaker and the one invoking the right
Second - the grievances raised
In STRIKE – employers and employees
In Assembly and petition – raisin: citizen --recipient of
grievances: government
Third: issues raise grievances raised
Strike: Employer –employee
IN PBM: abuses of police

THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION – applies to public and private sector

SEC 8
Available only to those working because of…

:”including those employed in the public or private sector”

- SC said it is applicable to it
- The phrase only emphasizes the importance of the consti guarantee to those
working
- It only says including without limitation
- Can be enjoyed by students, even those not working

- Is the extent of protection the same to public and private?

SSS v. CA

Right of emplyees in the public sector

--includung GOCC with orig charter and whether performing governmental or proprietal
function can be restricted
SC: consti only authorizes to form unions as societies or organization not contrary to law
- not include rright to strike
- while there is none in the consti that prohibits it, the nature functions of employee
in public sector allows the govenmrnt to restrict the consti guarantee
 SEC 8 of art 3 “for purposes not contrary to law”
 The law may declare a purpose contrary to law
 The congress may enact a law enumerating purpose contrary to law
  In so far employee to public sector – there is a law
 The law EO 180 CSC Cirlcular
 EO 180 issued by the pres is when exercising legislative
function
IBP membership dues
What is the extent –right to join and not to join, cannot be compelled to association which
he does not belong
- Creation of Integ Bar violates he rights of lawyers to become members of
association to which they do not want to be associated with
 In re Marcial edillon
 SC said that lawyers are not being compelled to join an
association which the do not yet belong, Upon passing bar
he becomes a member of the bar nut not yet integrated bar,
in order to be given a roll of atty he must choose IBP
chapter. If a successful examinee does not want to choose
an IBP chapter he will not be given license – there is
compulsion?
 SC said: that the right to association can be regulated. In
the exercise of rule making power of SC under sec 5, it can
regulate the integration of the bar
 While a member of the bar is compelled to be a member, it
is valid in exercise of rule making power. Even if aginst
will – valid regulation

Valid subject of contractual stipulation?

Union security clauses
- Management and employees can agree to mainitain membership in the union to
continually be employed. The parties is restricting their right to associate and not
associate, sc said this is valid (Elizalde case)

Sec 10 Impairment of contract

Whenever 2 parties entered of contract, government guarany that they will not interfere
In the case of Victoriano..
- every statues that changes into the express term of contract -- its legal
construction, its validity, its discharge and remedy for its enforcement impairs the
contract.
- The extent of the change is not material – small or substantial change impairs the
contract
- The constitution allows reasonable impairment of contract.
Rotter cv. Estebann
- Moratorium law
- Sc said that there are 2 conditions to validly impair the obligationof contracts –
period of suspension must be SPECIFIC, period must be REASONABLE
 - The total postponement was 12 years – that’s too long, unreasonable cannot
impose interest

Valid impairment of consti guarantee of obli and contract

 can be exercised in the inherent power of state
Lozano and Ortigas v. Bank
 Annotation shall only be used for residential, but the purchaser used it
for commercial because of the zoning
 Respondent violated its obligation
 SC said in every contractual obli – there are 2 implied elements
o All existing laws are deemed included in the contract – parties
cannot impose anything in violation of law. Even if the
contract does not say
o Every contract includes a reservation on the part of the state to
exercise the sovereign power as a postulate of legal order
– police power etc
Is the non impairment guaranty available only against the congress?
- “ NO LAW” only legislative acts?
- Gangzon v. Inserto NO
- SC applied the guaranty also to judicial decisions
- Trial code issued an order changing the guaranty from rem to surety
- SC said they cannot do that, because they will be changing the obligations of the
parties in violation to sec 10, so it applies to all governmental acts.
- Judicial, legislative, executive nn not only against congress and local legistive
council

Free accsess to the courts

 All persons shall have courts and quasi judicial body
 const guaranty adequate legal assistance cannot be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
Does it mean that every person can go to court without paying anything?
No, it is only a guaranty of availability of legal remedies with consequenT obligation to
pay reasonable fees

RULE OF COURT
Allows indigent to litigate as pauper

In one case, he is invoking to allow good shepherd to litigate as pauper litigant, because
GS is a non stock , non profit org that caters to the needs of pooer accdg to him GS to
allow, Sec 11 of Art 2
 SC said that it is only available to natural persons and not to juridical
persons.
 Ony natural persons can suffer poverty while corp can be insolvent not
applicable
 The rules of court takes into consideration the minimal wage, basic
necessities to be considered as pauper
  Such rules does not apply to artificial being

The right to free speech

 to strengthen laws recognize privilege communication
 There are certain kinds of speeches not protected such as: LIBEL
o In order to strengthen..
o Accdg to SC: US v. Bustos the principle of privilege
communication rest upon public policy and looks into the
untethered admin of justice tho sometimes it may affor
immunity to evil dispose anf malignant slander
2 kinds of privilege communcatiom
1. Absolute – total blameless whether criminal, civil or administrative
 Ex: Sec 11 of Art 6 – members of congress are given immunity of
speech – even if impelled with malice or bad faith
 Ex:
o During the delivery of privilege speech
 a member of the senate uttered words I am
suicidal, SC of idiots – Pobre v. Santiago –
disbarment case – SC: that’s uncalled for
especially for member of the bar, she should
give respect. SC said well she is a member
of senate, we cannot impose any sanction.
Her statements are absolutely qualified
2. Qualified – RPC and decisions
 Borjal v. CA
 editorial is not a qualified privilege communication
because it is not one of those enumerated in Art 354
o Private communication of one person to another in
performance of some legal, moral, social duty
o Fair and true report without comments or remarks
on any judicial, legislative official proceedings not
confidential in character or acts of public officials in
discharge of public function
 Editorial is an opinion – however art 354 is not exclusive
because art 354 is not the source of a qualified privilege
communication
 The genesis is the constitution itself meaning there may be
other laws or rules that may provide
- FREE ASSEMBLY AND PETITON
 Malaban v. Ramento
 Meer attendance of disorder will not make assembly illegal
 It is expected in public assemblies for grievances
– the feeling is always high pitch of excitement.
 If the assembly is held with a permit, it is valid even tho
there is disorder during the assembly. It is still valid
- Austria v. NLRC
  In diocese of Bacolod not all acts done by priest etc and other
religious will make such acts immune from governmental
regulation
 Religious have a secular existence – they exist in a community
regulated by law
 There are acts of religious that may fall under govt regulation
 Not all acts of religious are ecclesiastical
 In the case of Austria involcing the pasor of seventh day adventis –
there were missing collection- wife was excommunicated, pastor
was removed – FILED AN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
 This is not an ecclesatical issue, SC assumed jurisdiction. This is
not abt doctrines, or disciplinary measure based on creed. It is a
disciplinary measure imposed on its employee – there is employer-
employee relationship

SEC 12:
Guarantee right to custodial investigation

People v, Judge Ayson --- PAL employee, willing to reimburse, estafa --- the
respondent is saying that the statement was afforded without right of sec 12

In sec 12 (MANDATORY COUNSEL)

Miranda rights – as long as informed

EITHER:
1, Taken of custody
2, Deprive of action in some significant way
coupled with
(PEOPLE v. BOLANOS) while inside the mobile patrol car – BEGINS WHEN
Investigation SEIZES to be genrally questioned – but starts to focus on particular
a particular person as a SUSPECT

REQUISITES:

1. When investigation seizes to be a general inquiry and started to focus on person

as a supect
2. Taken to custody or deprived of movement
3. Law enforcement officer begins to ask question

People v, Bolanos
-the accused is entitled to all the rights
what is the reason?
People v, Andan – Rape case – mayor visited -- the accused suddenly confessed
 he asked whether there is a lawyer, none so media – accused
spontaneously given
  SC said not part of CI because confession is voluntarily given
 Right is to preclude slightest use of coercion of government. Not
prclude accused from telling the truth. Spontaneous statements made
under ordinary circumstances voluntarily are not part of CI particularly
when not elicited through questioning – sc admitted the evidence
 SC said that exclusionary rule is premised on presumption that
defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs into
menancing interrogation procedure whre the potentiality to
compulsion physical and psychological is apparent
 Protect from any compulsion or self incriminatiory statements

What are the rights?

1. Continuing right to remain silent and right to have counsel –can be waived
2. Right to be informed of this right –cannot be waived
3. Right not to be subj torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will - cannot be waived
4. Right not to be subject illegal forms of detention - cannot
5. “any confession ontained in violation” - Inasmissible as evidence - cannot

Even if in writing with a lawyer – cannot waive 1 and not to be tortured and the exclusion
of evidence -- even the defense does not object, the court on its own

People v. Pinlac
 it is incumbent upon prosecution to show that all constituional right is
afforded, judge and on appeal may suppress the evidence – if
prosecution failure to show

Who may conduct? ONLY LAW ENFOCEMENT OFFICER – duty to arrest criminals –
pnp, nbi ( Ho waing pang) Bureau if Immigration, Mayor..

In people v. Andan
 Reporters continued to interview – is this part of CI? They are not law
enforcement, and no indication that the acted under the control or
direction of law enforcement – meaning Private person can be
considered law enforcement officer
Navallo v. Sabdigan bayan
- COA auditors – determine the us of public funds main objective – not law
enforcement officers

POLICE LINE UP
1. Gamboa v. Cruz:
Arrested violation in Anti Vagrants – Someone reported for robbery—SC said that
uncounseled identification is still a general inquiry – not accusatory yet – no interview
2. People v. Macam
 The accused were apprehended, when arrested they were interrogated,
they cannot get confession – they were taken to the hospital and
required to be held in police line up – it is already party of CI, already
accusatory – CI already began as soon as they were interrogated – any
identification following the start of the CI becomes part of CI, in that
regard the uncounseled interrogation is inadmissible

Is he entitled to acquittal cos his right is violated?

NO!

Ho wai pang v. People – SUSTAINED because there are independent evidence

importation of drugs – Chinese were subjected to routine check by BOI, personnel were
carrying baggage. They impelled to open one of the boxes. BOI found that it is illegal
drugs. –Whether right to CI violated
People v. Pinlac: “to be informed” – transmission of meaningful
interpretation rather than prefatory recitation of constitutional principle.
Mere reading is not enough – correlative obligation to EXPLAIN ---
still sustained the conviction bec there is independent evidence to
sustain beyond reasonable doubt.

People v. Macam
- SC sustained conviction because there is independent evidence

 confession are not limited to verbal admission, only includes signing

inventory – reenactment also – required to act
 People v. Wong Chuen Ming[34] to exculpate himself from the crime
charged. Though there are semblance in the facts, the case of Ming is not
exactly on all fours with the present case. The disparity is clear from the
evidence adduced upon which the trial courts in each case relied on in
rendering their respective decisions. Apparently in Ming, the trial court, in
convicting the accused, relied heavily on the signatures which they affixed
on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags. The Court construed
the accused’s act of affixing their signatures thereon as a tacit admission of
the crime charged. And, since the accused were not informed of their
Miranda rights when they affixed their signatures, the admission was
declared inadmissible evidence for having been obtained in violation of their
constitutional rights. In ruling against the accused, the trial court also gave
credence to the sole testimony of the customs examiner whom it presumed to
have performed his duties in regular manner. However, in reversing the
judgment of conviction, the Court noted that said examiners testimony was
not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.
Accused were carrying baggages, alpen cereal baggages, the officers required to sign
each bag. They were not accorded the right to CI, SC said those signatures in the boxes
are not admissible as evidence because they are part of CI so which means in CI
confession not limited to verbal, also signing, also re enactment
( People v. Pinlac) required to confess by act, failure to accord the CI will render his act
inadmissible

CI includes: confession: -- failure to accord rights then inadmissible

1. verbal
2. re enactment
3. writing

People v. Dee
 shooting incident in bora
 immediately after the incident accused went to the precinct and
confessed to the police and the gun is still in the resto
 WHETHER Confession is admissible or part of the CI?
 SC said admissible
 SC said that statement of the accused is part of res gestae

PART OF RES GESTATE v. INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENT

The statement of accused is part of resgestae
IRS – admissibility is only limited establish existence of statement
PRG – admits the truthfulness of statement , “part of things done”
 officer said that accused told him that he shot a tourist and gun still in
resto is admissible and exception to hearsay, court can admit the fact
that the statement was made and the court can admit the truthfulness of
that statement

HO WAI PANG –it only incudes evidence obtained in violation of CI, other indeoendent
evidence are admissible. Only primary evidence

A passenger was interviewed by bureau immigration officer if he is

Both confession and evidence obtained using confession is admissible in evidence (

people v.. Alicanto) – rape with homicide of a child, during CI he confessed, police
officere were able to obtain evidence because of evid – UP TO WHAT EXTEND – any
confession and derivative evidence
 during CI, he confessed, Police obtained evidence because of the
confession – SC said the extent is CONFESSION and all derivative
evidence. Any confession in violation – No matter how far removed is
excluded as evidence. Application Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine –
Jusice frankfurter in US v. Nartone – sec 12 renders not only the
confession in p. 3 any confession or admission, the pplication extends
to derivative evidence kasi sa consti provision, confession only.
RA 7438 – custodial investigation extends to the practice of police of issuing invtitation
to a person who is investigated in connection with the commission of the crime which he
is a suspect. Attended to address those individual euphemistically invited by police.
Valid waiver of…

REMAIN to remain SILENT AND COUNSEL – VALID WAIVER – consti requires that
it be in writing and signed in presence of counsel

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS of inadmissibilty

 RA 7438, to be admissible, CI Report must be reduced in writing and
signed by accused – otherwise inadmissible
 EJ confession of accused must be in writing and signed by accused,
verbal admission during CI inadmissible – such shall be in writing and
signed by accused in presence of his counsel or absegned signed in
presence, of parents, elder sibs, spouse, muni mayor judge, school
district , priest, and minister of the gospel; otherwise inadmissible

BAIL under rule 114 GENERAL RULE “ALL PERSONS”

- is a security given FOR THE RELEASE OF A person in custody of law,

furnished by him or bonsman in guaranty of his appearance
4 forms of bail
1. property bond
2. corporate surety
3. cash
4. recognizance
Mandatory conditions
1. undertaking shall be effective upon approval, unless sooner cancelled remains
2. accused appear required if required
3. consequence of failure to appear shall be deemed a waiver – trial in absentia
4. bondsman shall surrender the accused for execution of FJ

May bail be granted even not in detention?

 object of bail is provisional liberty

 no need to wait detention
 Even not yet indetention, by voluntarily submitting himself – if he
learned there is warrant

Bail is granted charge to a crime normally. Under rule 119, a bail may be required in
order to secure attendance the material witness – bail is an obligation.

2 kinds (sec 4 and 5)

1. a matter of right
2. matter of discretion
3 instances matter of right
1. Before or after conviction of MTC
2. Before convticion of rtc of offense unless Rp higher and life imprisonment
a. GR: person entitled
UNLESS
1. Punishable of RP, LI, death and
2. Evidence of guilt is strong
3. Before convtion of rtc Punishable of RP, LI, death and evidence of guilt is not
strong

SEC 5, rule 113

Matter of Discretion:
1. After conviction by RTC by offense not pubishable by RP, LI, deth
2. Before conviction in RTC, Accused is punishable with an offense punishable by
RP, LI or death

The only reason why there is non bailable is because of the weight of evidence of guilt

In determining the weight of evidence, in BASCO v. RAPATALO – hold hearing –

summary determination, whether strong or weak
If strong, discretion seizes – no choice but to deny application
If weak, dicretion seizes, no choice but to grant

Discretion only lies on determination of weight

BASCO v. RAPATALO
 offense charged with RP
 month later, parents surprise the accused were in town
 SC said the hearing is mandatory in order to determine the weight of
evid and amount of bail
 SC said that discretion means governed by rule not arbitrary, not based
on humor

Are application for bail subject to 3 day notice rule?

In Bylon v, Sison—excepted of 3 day notice because time is of the essence

SC said: there are 4 obligationS OF THE court in the application of bail
1. To inform the prosecution of hearing of application or require recommendation
2. Ro conduct hearings
3. To determine weight of evidence of guilt
4. Strong or weak – discharge, deny
To deny the 3 day notice to the prosecution will be denial to prepare evidence to establish
the guilt – this is denial of due process

SC said right of hearing is mandatory as well as 3 day hearing

Whether members of AFP is entitled to bail?

Answer: Yes!
Constitution says all persons!

Exception:
Commendador v, De villa
In that case, members of AFP have no right to bail in general court martial proceedings
 military the members are more entitled to speedy deposition of case

Ex Trillanes
- Coup d etat (rpc) – bailable
- GCM proceedings – not bailable

In determining whether matter of right or discretion

1. Penalty of offense charge
2. Weight of evidence
What penalty when there is difference at the time of filing at the time of pendency of
application
Supposing at the time of charging of information RP
During filing of motion application of bail, law was amended penalty reduced to Prision
mayor
o PEOPLE V. DONATO
o Rebellion at the time of filing, rebellion Is punishable by RP to
death, during the application reduced to PM
o It is the penalty at the time of application to bail shall be the
basis in determining – SC granted bail regardless of weight of
evidence because the penalty at the time of application is the
determinative factor
If asked if the penalty at the time of application of bail is the determinative factor, do
you agree?

NO, because that statement is taken only from the context of people v. donato when the
law lowered the penalty

The answer : THE LOWER PENALTY whether at the time of filing or pendency of
application shall govern

How bout if law ncreases? Not because it is ex post facto

Can bail be applied in non criminal proceedings like deportation, extradition, quarantine,
No, sec 13 of art3 is only exclusive to crim cases but right to bail can be granted not
under sec 13, but under sec 1 right to due process. Right to bail in sec 13 is exclusive to
crim only.
Hongkong v. Judge Olalia

Extradition proceedings – non criminal

5 postulates:
1. Major instrument in suppression of crime with the advent of easy travel –
criminals who may flee from jurisdiction may demand for the return to administer
justice
2. requesting state ,ust accord due process to accused – state must reciew the
procedure the other state, when convinced that due process other state, he will
sign
3. Proceedings are sui generis –
i. only 2 issues:
1. whether application for extradition complied with
extradition treaty and
2. w/n person is extraditable,
b. In crim proof beyondreasonable doubt ---- standard in EP: only prima
facie ; w/n extradite is entitled to bail – clear and convinving
c. Decisions in crim– executory upon finality once
d. Extradition – not becomes executor unless approved by the president
4. Compliance in gf and underlying risk of flight – fled jurisdiction of requesting
state

Enrile v. Sandiganbayan – char punishable by RP

- granted the right of bail
- SC said regardless of penalty, weight of evidence, stage of the proceeding or
evidence of guilt, bail is a matter of discretion when continued detention will pose
a risk in his health
- SC granted on HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATIONS – bail as a matter of
discretion
- Gives the court of justice authority when bail is a matter of discretion

CONDITIONS (rule 114)

6 years – discretion
6 years and 1 day and one of the circumstance in sec 5 – must deny

Attendant circumstance relevant?

Enrile case – there is voluntary surrender and age – SC said that aggravating and
mitigating circumstance is not relevant in application

Determining factor: Penalty imposed by law, not penalty imposed by trial

RP Murder
Prosecution : strong evidence of guilt and denied bail
During trial sentenced him of RT, can appellate court grant?
 YES NOW A MATTER OF DISCRETION!! Now after conviction. This rule further
expands the constitution, what will violate the constitution is a rule that will restrict
the right to bail.
You can expand it if.. it will not violate the constitution:
 After convtion, but the crime of which he is convicted is temporal then
the court can gran the application for bail as matter of discretion

SEC 14 Rights of the accused

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law
In all criminal proceedings
--- accused shall be presumed innocent until contrary is proved
--- enjoy the right to be heard by himself or counsel
--- to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him
--- to have speedy, impartial and practical trial
--- to meet witness face to face
--- to secure attendance of witness and production of evidence in his behalf
--- to

There is one right that does not belong to accused – trial in absentia – a right of
prosecution, exception by right to be heard by himself

1. Right to due process

Alonte v. Jabellano
- rape case in Laguna
- 4 mandatory requirement in judicial and crim proceeding
1. court must have jurisdiction over subject matter
 by law or constitution that vests jurisdiction, bo 129, rules of court
2. acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused
 Voluntary surrender and arrest
3. must be given the opportunity to be heard

4. Judgment must be rendered after trial

Different in general applies to all proceeding

- both substantive and procedural
- available to all persons
In sec 14 applies only to crim proceedings
- only available to accused
- only available to procedural due process
TATAD v. Sandiganbayan
- what is the effect of inordinate delay in conduct of PI? 3 years
- This violates the crim due process of accused
- Parking practice – case will not be acted, respondent can file petition to dismissal
- R: Delay does not justify dismissal
- SC said that delay is worst than absence of PI because of absence can be easily
remedied.
- SC said in so far as delay, defect cannot be corrected – no machine to turn back
time –
- What is the wisdom: the principle in constitution “justice delayed justice denied”
already suffered
- Inordinate delay in conduct of PI violates crim due process and ground for finality

Galman v. Sandiganbayan
- SC reversed judgment of acquittal – few cases
- Because a mistrial or non trial of century
- The accused is members of afp and jurisdiction given to sb – the justices were
called to a secret meeting
- When presiding justice and tanodbayan attended the meeting, all semblance of
impartilty are already lost
- At that time – already pre determined
- SC cannot allow such a sham trial a travesty
- Once the justices are under direction of pres then decision becomes pre
determined of president and violates rights of due process

3. Presumption of innocence
i. Because All prosecutorial arms of govt are being mobilized to
esablsih the guilt of the accused
ii. Opponent is the entire government machinery
iii. ONLY AVAIALBLE to NATURAL PERSONS
(Feeder lines)
It is only a disoutable presumption
Standard of evid: Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt: moral certainty is required not
absolute – proof which produce conviction in an unprejudiced mind

People v, Dramayo:
- murder case there wer 7 accused, 3 were acquitted, 2sw, 2 convicted
- 2 accused: there was conspiracy – shall extends to the other - innocent of one,
extended to them
- SC: conspiracy must be show beyond reasonable doubt, one proved only thos who
have participated in that conspiracy can be convicted, those who did not
- By reasonable doubt – engender by an investigation of whole truth
- Does not mean innocence of one is the innocence of all
To doubt is to acquit? No!

There are certain doubt – unreasonable doubt

Dumlao v. comelec
- the law challenged in this case is a law that disqualifies a person convicted of acts
of disloyalty from running form elective office under the law, there is
presumption that persons charged of crim of acts of disloyalty – deemed guilty
prima facie
- Merely charged – prima facie – disqualified
- IS it allowed?
- Accusation is not synonymous with guilt – mere accusation should not be basis to
treat a person charged the same as those already convivted, to place a person who
is merely accused a crim in the same level as those already convicted violates the
presumption of innocence. Does not mean the est presumption if guilt
unconstitutional – law on malversation, flight –
- SC there may be laws or rules establish the presumption of guilt, as long as based
on human experience and there is a rational connection between facts established
and ultimately presumed therefrom. As ling as 2 conditions present
- SC said to treat person merely charge of an offense the same as persons already
convicted already violates presumption of innocence
Marquez v. Comelec

- the implementing rules and regulations was being challenged – fugitives from
justice are disqualified to run from local elective office and the implementing
rules and regulation defined who are fugitives from justice
FUGITIVE - person who after conviction flees the jurisdiction in order to avoid or evade
punishment
Is that a vaild definition?
SC said no, FJ must be interpreted + person who after been charged to evade the
jurisdiction to avoid prosecution
SC: wants to treat similarly person already convicted and merely charged and treat them
similarly and make them fugitive from justice therefore disqualified
Definition

How doe we reconcile ?

In Dumlao – the disqualification arises from charging

In marquez – the mere filing does not make a fugitive
 the act of flight that makes him FJ not merely the accusation,
accusation couples with flight

Corpuz v. People
 Equipoise rule
 o SC said that if the evidence for the prosecution is evenly
balance with the evidence fro the defense , equip rule is to be
applied to tilt the scale of justice in favor of innocene
o ER can only be applied if evidence is 50 50
o Supposing the evidence of prosecution is 99% but the evid of
iinocence of defense is 1% reasonable doubt – EQ rule does
not apply
 Still does not convict the accused, as long as there is a
reasonable doubt even no eq rule – scale of justice shall
still tilt to presumption of innocent
 So what is the relevance? Eqp rule is an analytical tool
to ascertain the probative value of an evidence. During
trial both parties present evidence and after presentation
court will assess the evidence.
 Court must make independent assessment of each
evidence
 Supposing 2 evid presented – court said evid 1,
establishes the evid by 80 % -- will consider that evid
for guilt of accused ,, evid 2 – establish guilt by 50 %,
est innocence by 50% -- now we apply equipoise rule –
in order to make that evid, evid for innocence

RIGHT TO BE HEARD by himself and by counsel

People v, Holgado – mandatory

- accused appeared during arraignment with no counsel
- the court asked do you have a counse or are you pleading guilty
- so the accused said I don’t have counsel and pleading guilty
- Sc said there Is no vaild waiver of right to counsel –
- OLD RULE: in arraignment court has 4 obligation
1. Inform the accused that he has a right to be assisted counsel
2. Ask accused if he wants to represented by a counsel
3. if the accused wants to be represented by counsel de parte, he must given
by the court to procure within reasonable time to obtain service of
4. If he wants to, and if cannot afford, court must give him counsel de officio
- based on the old rules, the appointment of counsel de oficio and the grant of
reasonable time to procure the services of a counsel de parte depends on the desire
of the accused on the third, if accused desires.
- If accused
New rules – appointment of counsel de officio mandatory to the court
Except:
- if it appears that he can represent and sufficiently defend himself.
- When the accused desires to be represented by counsel de parte
People v. Holgado case, the accused is entitled to heard by himself or by counsel and
right to be heard would be little avail if not include the right to be represented by counsel.
Even intelligent man…. He does not know how to est innocence

Supposing the minutes of the trial proceeding, minutes did not state that trillanes
submitted that it complied with the condition.

People v. Agbayani –
SC: not everything shall be indicated in record, we must rely of presumption on the
regularity in the performance of official duties
- it is incumbent for the accused to show that he was no afforded his right
during arraignment but in the absence of anything does not necessarily
mean that it happen
Is the choice by the accused of counsel preferred?
Yes but not exclusive

Amion v. Chiong son –

Sc said that right to choose does not exclude other counsels who may be competent or
independent
--the choice does not extend if it will become arbitrary or will violate other party to due
process

Right to be informed of nature of accusation against him

People v. Quitlong
- charged with murder – no allegation of conspiracy -- prosecution showed
there is conspiracy – SC said there are 3 reasons
 To prepare for defense
 To avail himself of rights
 To inform the court such facts as alleged as will allow
the court to determine if conviction may be had based on
allegation of facts
- In crim info there are minimum allegations to comply with consti guaranty
 Name OF accused,
 Designation given,
 statement of acts or omissions constituting the offense
 name of offended party
 approx time and date
 place of commission.
If one of this is absent,
 Charge of conspiracy must be alleged in the info in order to inform
accused that he is being to inform the accuse accountable not only
to his own act but also to the act of another accused
 Failure to state in the info cannot allow or admit evidence
establishing this element. THS SC DISALLOWED the
presentation of evidence because it will violate the rigt of the
accused to be informed
What is the element of arraignment?

It is essential! This is the time where the accused will be informed why the prosecuting
arm of the government is being mobized to convict him. Even if crim info is vaguely
worded, at the very least he is being informed. Right to be assited by counsel is
mandatory so he may explain before he plea

Borja v. Mendoza:

- arraignment is not a useful formality

- it is mandatory

The accused can be convicted only with those included in trial

The accused cannot be convicted of proven withour charge
ONLY be convicted of CHARGED AND PROVEN durinf trial

Exception: Variance!
Offense charged necessarily or is necessarily included/includes in the offense charge rule
120

1. OC necessarily includes the OP If some of the essential elements of OC constitute all

the essential element of OP—

OC: murder
OP: homicide = Murder includes offense of homicide – in such cases, convicted of only
homicide

2. OC is included in OP when all elements of OC form part of elements of OP

OC: theft
OP: robbery – convicted of OC which is included in OP

Always the lesser offense if there is variance but must be included of the other

Pecho V, people

Offense Charged: RA 1319

--- special law there is no attempt, the SC sustain in conviction of estafa through
falsification because it is included in sec – convicted if not charge because it is included

Title v. Recital – Soriano v. SB

Violate of ra 1319
Whether PI can be considered as transaction
PI cannot be considered as a transaction, but the recital of acts or omission does not make
out of 1319 but a violation of rpc
 BODY shall prevail – consti guaranty not violated
Speedy and Impartial Public Trial

Speedy- a trial conducted according to the law of criminal procedure rules and regulation
free from vexatious, capricious and arbitrary delay

People v. Tee
– the material witness in custody of nbi failed to appear for 20 successive hearing
days which result to suspension for 2 months
– Prosecution move for the issuance for the warrant of arrest still nbi failed to
present
– SC said the concept of speedy trial is a relative one a determination must include
assement of
o 5 factors (LRCEP)
(1) length of delay;
(2) reason for delay
(3) conduct of prosecution and the defense
(4) efforts exerted by accused in asserting his rights
(5) prejudice or damage caused by the accused
– SC said there is violation
o Proceedings are attended by vexations, capricious, and oppressive delays
o Unjustified postponement requsted snd grsnted
o Without justifiable reason a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without having case tried
(People v. Tee) violation of right to speedy trial
 When the delay by the prosecution!! No right of speedy trial if
cause by accused
o There was no delay because the delay was not attributable to the
prosecution, prosecution exhausted all means to procure attendance of
witness
In crim proceedings there are stages:

o Can we say that right to speedy trial is only during trial proper?
Flores v. People
- the trial court rendered the decision, on appeal, remanded the case. For a
long period of time there was no movement
- Whether the delay from ca to referral part of consti guaranty
- The right of speedy trial applies only during trial stage and proceedings
anterior to the trial which means trial and earlier!
- After trial not under sec 14!! But ther provision art 16
- In determining violation RST: Delay in appellate proceedings is irrelevant,
Relevant is when the case is remanded to TC and there was no movement
for long period
- RST – during the trial proper and proceedings before or anterior
- If the proceedings prior to trial delayed, then trial will also be deayed
1
Dismissal/violation – is FINAL!!

Remedies: (2)

Conde v. rivera
- case involving midewife in tayabas
- prosecution will move many times
- accused had to go to tc then hearing is cancelled
- The accused was made to dance attendance in court, the court was
referring to dance routine of cha cha going back, going to. The accused is
entitled to Speedy Trial
- Inordinate delay in conducting the trial is a violation of right to speedy
trial and a ground for final dismissal of the case.
- Why is it final decision? Compared to dismissal due to demurrer of
evidence.
- Equivalent to acquittal – because like demurer the prosecution have no
evidence that’s why they are delaying it
- SC alternative remedies: Habeas corpus if accused is dentained
 Certiorairi/prohib/mandamus
Mateo v. Villaluz
 trial judge administered the oath of a witness of prosecution
 later on during the trial, witness recanted, he was forced to sign
 What is the effect of recantation
o Instances are required to inhibit under rules of court
1. Relationship of the parties
2. Previous participation
3. Pecuniary interest

 Sc said in criminal case, the accused is entitled to the cold neutratilty

of an impartial of the trial juge, the sc describe who is an impartial
judge – one who manifest that commitment or concern to cause of
justice according to the legal norm, a cerebral man who deliberately
holds in check the tack and pull of purely personal preference
 Judges should refrain from notarizing documents because when the
witness testified that he was forced to sign the document, that makes
the attestation of judge false, the notarization does not validate the
allegation. Notarization only signifies that the document was signed by
the person whose name is indicated in that document and it was
voluntarily signed
 When the witness said that he was forced it means that judge is lying,
or part of the coercion—so judge shall inhibit! Judge has the duty to
render just decision and duty of rendering it in such a manner free

PORTES GABRIEL NOTES

 from any suspicion. Judge must not only be impartial, also appear
impartial.
 Even judge render a decision based on evidence but if the litigants
frequently see the judge socializing with other party, other part may
harbor a suspicion
 Judges shall remove semblance of partiality – not only be impartial but
also appear impartial


People v. Tehankee
- Accoding to the accused the pervasive publicity is prejudicial-
- The doctrine is relevant to right to impartial trial
- It presupposes that the judge is influenced in rendering decision
- Judge v. Jury – SC: Unlike a jury. Learned in science of law, the judges can filter
what passes as evidence and what only constitutes hearsay. Judges are not
required to be isolated
- SC said that the idea of an impartial judge is not like a hermit – it is impossible to
seal the minds but they know what is admissible and hearsay
- Mark Tuane: if a gentlemen of high standing, the..
 It is very dangerous to place the law to hand sof jury
- Does not necessary mean that
- Standard of evidence whether pervasive publicity constitutes prejudicial publicity:
totality of circumstances test – must show by direct evidence that the judge was
influence

Trial must be public:

Garcia v. Domingo – SC said that the objective of public trial is to offset the danger of
conducting it in an unjust and illegal manner. The right to public trial is Guard to
arbitrariness – ONLY ONE CASE – during the hearing it was hot and judge ask if they
want to conduct hearing in Air conditioner
- there was only one case: chamber of the judge – proceesigns were held where ther
is AC
- Trial is public when anyone who wants to observe can do so without qualification
– no bar of attendance – the fact that he is not a part
- Sc held that trial is public, if the friends, family of the parties can attend the
proceedings. Sc recognized that COURT ROOMS CAN only accommodate so
much. SC held The mere fact it was held in chamber does not mean a private
proceeding – no one is barred during the proceeding, nobody was present. Only
limited k

Public trial v. Publicized trial

In the matter of request for live tv and radio coverage of Plunder of Estrada and the other
case proceeding – Ampatuan

SC discussed:

Validity of Audio visual recordings

In re Ampatuan – evolution of position of court in audio visual recording, from Aquino,
Estrada, and this
In Aquino – the libel case – outright prohibition of audio visual. SC held that court
proceedings ARE NOT ENTERTAINMENT. ABSOLUTE BAN
In Estrada – allowed for documentation purposes not for live airing
Ampatuan case
– regulation must be implemented, not prohibition – balance of the interest of the
accused to impartial trial and right of public to information—ALLOWED live tv and
radio coverage but very strict – In the MR, it was modified – live streaming inside
the premises. Only those within the premises can see the proceeding in the court
room. Not in other houses.
– Pro hac vice decision – cannot apply as judicial precedent of cases
o The factual circumstances of the proceeding impels the court to allow live
video streaming because there were 57 victims, 197 accuse, both sides listed
200 witnesses each, families pa or public. No court room could accommodate
such
– Right of public trial – belongs to accused, can be invoked by accused
– Supposing that accused want private trial –everybody excluded. Can prosecution
object? Accused cannot insist. Prosecution can also invoke right to public trial under
section 1 of article 3. Public trial is a guard against arbitrariness, only that not under
sec 14
– In extradition proceedings. – bail not available in non criminal cases. It may be
inoked in sec 1, art 3. Due process. In the case of Ollala. In order that extraditee may
be granted must show: Not a flight risk or will not pose danger to community OR
humanitarian purposes. Matter of reciprocity

Sec 15 Habeas Corpus

The consti does not allow suspension the writ only privilege of the writ

Habeas corpus- means you have the body

-the person who has the custody is required to produce the body at a given time and place
and give the explanation of detention

- A high prerogative writ

- The object of Writ of HC is to inquire into the legality or the validity of
detention or arrest is legal
- The privilege of the writ of HC is an order of the court to release a person who is
unduly detained
 1. What may be suspended is the PRIVELEGE of securing the liberty of
person illegaly detained if privilege is suspended
2. So… a writ of HC may still be filed even if privilege is suspended. Only
that the return if suspended, the return shows that if the person is being
detained of rebellion or offenses inherent in invasion then the court will
defer the application
- Suspended : in cases of rebellion and invasion when public safety requires – both
grounds must be qualified by public safety
 Who can suspend? Presiden has the privilege --- howlong? Max
60 days
 REBELLION AS CHARGED IN THE RPC – CRIME!
 offenses inherent in invasion then the court

Lagman case (2)

- Proclamation of martial law does not need confirmation of President
- Sc noted the member of con comm balance the rights of the people. Pres can NO
LONGER proclaim martial law or suspend the writ of HC if there is no actual
rebellion and invasion when public safety requirement
- In the deliberation: exclusive prerogative of the president – no conformity needed
– Suspension of privilege of writ of Habeas Corpus effective without approval on
part of the Congress.
- Approval of congress is required only if initial proclamation is extended
- The initial declaration no need to confirm with congress
- Supposing he declared it in 30 days, on the 30th day can he extend without
consent of congress? No! Congress shall confer
In case of Padilla v, congress
- Issue is obli of congress to meet in session upon declaration or suspension
 Sec 16 art 7, the congress shall if not in session convene without
need of call – within 24 hours
 What is the purpose? Immediately convene – congress as
legislative body can act on it
 Mandates the congress to hold in session to determine the factual
bases?
 SC said No convene is different from holding a session
 Convene only applies if the congress if in recess
 Must convene – not required to hold in session
 Then president will hold session – so when pres submit
report – the congress can receive it
- another issue: Requirement to meet in session in cases when congress does not
intend to revoke
 Constitution: Congress may revoke voting jointly – cannot be set
aside by the president—majority of all
 SC said no, only required to hold a session to determine the factual
bases of SWC if intends to revoke but not if it does not intend
- In cases, immediately issued a resolution in support – not required to meet
In the case of Lagman v. Medialdea
Standard of evidence to DMC and SWHC:Probable cause
Sc said that there is nothing in the constitution that requires to start ftom the most benign,
. – no order required –the president cannot be required to follow the order – Pres can
exercise military power in any order.
 the standard to be required: Probable Cause: Whether there is rebellion or
Invasion.
 The only authority of the courts particularly the SC is to determine the
sufficiency the factual basis presented by the president. Not the accuracy of
statements
 In the case of Lagman, the statement of the president of whereas clauses are
based on false statements. SC said we cannot determine accuracy only the
sufficiency – so determine only based on the factual cases or statements
o Shall only be based on the factual circumstances at the time of
proclamation and those before it.
o Not the after
o If appears false,
Lagman v. Pimintel
- There is nothing in the consti that prohibits multiple extension as long as rebellion
and invasion
- The consti provides that the period of extension is within the discretion of
congress
- Supposing the congress confirms did not revoke, then confirms – can the SC
revoke the confirmation? Yes under Paragraph 3 of art 18, The Sc can review the
sufficiency of factual bases not only the president but also the congress – can
overrule – limited to the time and before declaration or suspension of PWHC
 Can the congress overrule the lifting? Yes, congress can overturn
on the basis of fact subsequent to the declaration – can use
supervening events to overrule – since authority of sc is limited,
there may be supervening event
Lagman v. Mendandiela?
-“in appropriate proceeding”
- the consti itself provides for the process
- the jurisdiction or remedies
- par 3, sec 18 art 7 “in a proper remedy” unlike sec 65.. Can be any citizen. In rule
65 suffer any prejudice – can question the sufficiency of factual bases
- PWHC seeks to relieve a person illegally dentained and to secure his liberty.
- the president can
- there are other remedies to secure the liberty, one is writ of amparo
- Sec of national defense – 5 tyes of amparo – one of th 5 is similar to HC
- what if suspended PWHC – can he be released thru amparo? No,
because the term writ of HC, in sec 15 of art art 3, and sec 18, art 7 – refers to a remedy –
it applies to any other remedy – as long as object of remedy is to relieve a person from
illegal detention. If Rule 102 only then it can easily be defeated court may by issuing
another rule. To give the consti provision a spirit

What is the effect of petition of bail

Jackson case:
 What is the effect of the application for bail and pending writ of HC
 Sc said that the application for bail is a recognition of vailidity of arrest –
meaning petition HC shall me dismissed

Right to bail shall not be impaired ieven when Suspended of WHC

Can someone arrested for rebellion post bail bec of the constit provision?
- the suspension also denies the right to bail covered by the suspension – like
persons charged with rebellion

Supposing 100 suspected rebellion during the suspension, immediately after arrest. Filed
criminal charges. Can the national defense continue beyond 3 days?
 No must be released after 3 days

Sec 16
Speedy disposition of cases. [Sec. 16. Art. Ill: “All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. ’]

Speedy Trial – applies to accused only

- only trial
- if the right is violated: dismissal and ismissal is final
Speedy disposition – applies to all parties whether defendant. Petitioner
- all proceeding
- applies to all stages even on appeal
- Remedy is to hazen the proceedings and administrative

Right to speedy trial applies to trial proper and proceedings anterior to the trial.

- the former covers only criminal proceedings.

- Prosecution is not entitled in speedy trial
- If the trial is attended by
- vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays caused by prosecution the accused
may claim the right to speedy trial.

Right to speedy disposition

- applies to all stages of the criminal proceedings.

- The latter covers criminal administrative, civil, quasi judicial proceedings
- speedy disposition the prosecution and the accused.
- If the right claimed is speedy disposition of cases, the only objective is to expedite
the disposition the case.
Right to self incrimination

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

--No man shall be bound to accuse himself

-- common law principle is firsy applied in England
2 grounds
1. Public Policy – IT WILL PLACE THE DEFENDANT UNDER THE STRONG
TEMPTAYION TO perjury
2. Humanity – extract from the defensant’s own lips his guilt by the kind of duress
every specie and degree of which the law abhors

What is the extent:

Us v. Tan teng:
Gonnorhea
During the investigation accused was required to remove the garments – took substance
from genitals of accused
SC: Justice holmes (hult v. US) the prohibition EXTORT physical and moral
TESTIMONIAL compulsion – not exclusion of body if material

Villaflor v. Summers
--Adultery – undergo pregnancy examination
SC sustained the examination shall not be held in open court, same sex

People v. Gallarde

Sc overruled: admitted the photograps – purely mechanical acts are not covered

Beltran v. Samson
Preliminary investigation. Required to transcribe to compare with the subject of the
offense – this is a complete
SC: applied right of SI – writing is more than moving the body or hand, not purely
mechanical act because it requires intelligence and attention

 CG it extends to document, chattels and other objects incriminating the accused.

 There is an early case sc sustain the police in eXTRACTING morphin in the
mouth of the accused—purely mechanical act
 There must be certain limitation
 Must not be too invasive
Submit blood sample –
Cannot be required to submit sperm samples – too invasive

Chavez v. CA

 involves a case of Estafa – accused is notorious – members of gang big 4

 the accused was surpised that he is the star witness
 The judge said he can be called by prosecution – he objected
 The accused can only invoke RAS during the time incrimination was asked
 SC: When invoking the right is accused can refuse to take the winess stand.
Ordinary witness Cannot invoke to take witness stand
o The only reason why the prosecution will call the accused is to
incriminate. Then no need to wait to ask question
the constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well as the
innocent and foresighted." -- this right is "not merely a formal technical rule the
enforcement of which is left to the discretion of the court"; it is mandatory; it secures to a



Beltraan v. Samson (Does it apply only during trial?)
Sc extended even during preliminary investigation. It will be absurd

RASC not exclusive to criminal

Pascual Case – Medical malpractice
 compelled to testify against himself
 SC said the right apply to civil and administrative cases which is penal in
character
 The case involve here is medical malpractice which could result to revocation
the license of doctor then right is available

It is the interest of state to prosecute violation of the laws

Interest of accused to maintain confidential any facts known to him
Justice Malcolm: as long as it remains concealed, he is safe. If draw it,
he is exposed to conviction

Is there a mechanism to bridge the interest of state to prosecute and sustain the
guarantee?
MAPA v. Sandiganbayan

Moderate mechanism in order to punish and protect: provide immunity statues – he

may be compelled to say incrimination

TRANSACTIONAL immunity – accused can no longer be prosecuted for any offense

related to testimony
USE derivative use – the accused may be prosecuted as long as the testimony cannot be
used as evidence against him
  he can still be convicted by independent evidence to siificient to est guilt of
poof beyond reasonable guilt

SEC 18 No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”]

Involuntary servitude

What are two aspects of involuntary servitude?

A: 1)Poenoge - Compulsion to perform or work in consideration of debt against his will

2) concept of slavery - one has absolute control or power over the fortune, life and
liberty of another

What Is involuntary servitude?

- condition of enforced and COMPULSARY service of one to another
- condition compelled by force, imprisonment, coercion against his will to labor for
another
- there must be compulsion
- Human trafficking act – includes of any other device or scheme – even if no
physical compulsion—being enticed because of threat or mistaken belief
- Subject to certain imits:
1. Sec 4 of art 2 – Personal Military or Civil Service –as between the interest
of individual, interest of state is primordial – If the state does not exist
anymore,then mawawala na din lahat
2. Pose Comitatus – order allowing law enforcemen to be aided by able
bodied men to pursuit criminal (Rule 113)
3. Patria potestas- parents may compel child as a form of discipline
4. Naval Enlistment – because of the nature – required to complete their
voyage.
5. Return to work order in case assumption of jurisdiction – under the labor
code when sec of Labor assume jurisdiction –
 Philippine Refining company case:
 The voluntariness of the employee's entering into such a
contract of employment — he has a free choice between
entering into it or not — with such an implied condition,
negatives the possibility of involuntary servitude ensuing.

6. When Prisoners be subject to forced labor if it is included in the
punishment

AClaracion case
 - WHC of mr aclaracion- he resignes as steno but there are cases not yet transcribed
--- being compelled to complete
- SC: official duties mandated by law are exempted to the right against involuntary
servitude
Coffee: arrest Aclaracion, a resident of that municipality, and to confine him in jail until
he submits a complete transcript of his notes

Appellate Court may compel a former court stenographer to transcribe his stenographic
notes. That prerogative is ancillary or incidental to its appellate jurisdiction and is a part
of its inherent powers which are necessary to the ordinary and efficient exercise of its
jurisdiction and essential to the due administration of justice.

Incarceration of the contemning stenographer is lawful because it is the direct

consequence of his disobedience of a court order.

Sec 19 Prohibited Punishment

“(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any

prisoner or detainee, or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.”]

PROHIBITED:
1. excessive fines – grossly disapproportionate to the offense
2. cruel 0 involving torture or lingering death
3. Degrading
4. Inhuman punishment
 not necessary all
 independent WITH EACH OTHER
 Cruelty – People v. Estoista – case involving possession unlicensed use firearm
– firearm was used to hunt chicken laborer was hit—Punishable by
imprisonment of 5- 10 yrs—RTC: did not imposed he minimum – judge said
that it is too much --- 1 year lang cos its too cruel
o SC overruled the decision -- cruelty in punishment refers to the
cruelty inherent in the imposition of penalty, not the
unnecessary suffering caused by the penalty
o The sc did not dealt if long period of imprisonment is cruel
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a
penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. "The fact that the punishment authorized by
the statute, is severe does not make it cruel and unusual." Expressed in other terms, it has
been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be "flagrantly and plainly
oppressive," Grossly disproportionte

o Small transgressors are like small fish bound to be caught when

the heavy net is not spread. The SC said that if the judge feels
that it is too harsh still required to impose the minimum
penalty. The RPC provides that it may recommend executive
penalty by lowering

In Sec 14, Art3 trial in absentia accused convicted, cannot appeal in absentia– losses his
legal standing – can appeal if within reglamentary period – arrested or voluntary
surrendered

Exception: People v. Esparas – Death penalty was sentenced – he was tried in absentia
–Whether the trial courts decision is final? SC said no when it comes to death penalty, in
can only attain finality when SC sustain the conviction.

Can it be delegated to the CA? Yes,

SC: what is at stake is extinguishment of life – must assure that error free

Is death penalty prohibited in 1987 constitution?

NO, death penalty is still a valid penalty only for specific offenses. In HENIOUS crime
“compelling resons involving heinous crime as determined by the Congress

Echagaray v. Sec of Justice – Petitioner is challenging the death penalty by lethal

injection because of the administering of drugs, according to him anything that inflicts
pain prohibited.

SC said: that in strict sense all penalties inflict pain –moral psychological – Inherently all
penalties are painful – then if pain makes the penalty cruel then all are
unconstitutional….
 Cruelty in punishment particularly in death penalty involves torture or lingering
pain.
 Death penalty by lethal injection is not unconstitutional

Unusual punishment no longer carried in the 1987 consti—what is the effect of the non
inclusion?

Unsual means not ordinary

Echegaray case: non inclusion allows the state to experiment – the congress
Is allowed to enact a law that is unusual provided that it is not cruel, inhuman or
degrading.
Non imprisonment for Debt: based on common law principle
 intended to prohibit of an orde writ of capeas ad satisfaciendum – creditor may
compel the taking the body until fully paid. – inhuman practice to be prevented

What does the term debt means? Financial obligation arising from contract expressed
and implied. Not covered if law, quasi delict,, ex delicto, delict

Section 20. No person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

It only covers the non-performance of obligations ex contractu and not those obligations
arising from law, ex delicto, quasi-delict, delict.

where a judge issued a warrant of arrest on the strength of a criminal complaint charging
the accused with wilful non- payment of debt, the Supreme Court annulled the warrant.

BP 22
- punishes a person "who makes or draws and issues any check on account or for
value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds - upon
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit
- Any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when
he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period
of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
- To mitigate the harshness of the law in its application, the statute provides that
such presumption shall not arise if within five (5) banking days from receipt of
the notice of dishonor, the maker or drawer makes arrangements for payment of
the check by the bank or pays the holder the amount of the check.

Gravamen of BP 22: making or issuing worthless checks or a check that is dishonored

upon presentment for payment

BP 22 ( Lozano v. Martinez)
-imprisonment in failure to pay the face value of the check – he may face criminal charge
– under the law once dishonored, payee has obligation to notify – crim liab if failure to
pay from notice of dishonor.
- B has to notify – then has 5 days to evade crim liability –
--BP 22 unconstituional? No. what is prohibited in the coonstituion are those debts
arising from contract – the requirement from the law to pay within 5 days from notice of
dishonor not obligation arise from contracts (ex contractu) – this arise from the law
-- same to sa obligation of the father to give support – because it arises from the law

Double Jeopardy. Sec. 21. Art. Ill: “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.’]

“Ne Bis in Idem” --

1st offense – same offense “No person shall be put twice into jeopardy of the same
offense
2nd sentence - if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act

People v. Relova: why is there a need to

1. For the same offense-

2. For the same act-
- Double jeopardy of same offense only applies if 2 offenses are the same or
identical and there can be no identity of offenses if one is punished by national
government and the other is an ordinance. Even if the elements are the same, if
the offense is punishable by national law and other is local, there can be no
identity. That is why there is a need for the 2nd type of DJ

- Theft of electricity – police filed a crim complaint of violation of ordinance but

offense prescribed after 2 months. Filed after 9 months – dismissed because of
prescription. Then prosecutor filed for violation of rpc for the same act
 No longer allowed. Dj for same act Falls under ordinance and crim
law
 How to determine if there is a an DJ acts court will look into the
time– the guideline in the case is by determining the location of
acts if impelled with one criminal design. Then conviction or
acquittal to one bars the prosecutor to other
- The identity of offenses that must be shown need not be absolute identity:
Case: 1st paragraph "same offense"

where the second offense..

1. necessarily includes the first offense

2. necessarily included in such first offense or
3. where the second offense is an attempt to commit the first
or a
4. frustration thereof

Requires identity of offenses

Melo v. people

Test “same evidence test” – if same evidence required in 1sta nd 2nd are the same
– DJ – Inaccuarte
There is identity of offense even if evidence for the 1st and 2nd are
no the same as long as the onse is the attempt, frustration of the other, or includes
and included

People v, Tampal

Elements of Double Jepardy of punishment for same offense

1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to seconf
2. first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
3. Second jeopardy must be for the same offense – we may include that an
attempt or frustration thereof, or include or included in the former charge.

Requisites of Legal or first jeopardy

1. Valid complaint or information
2. Before competent court
3. Arraigned and pleads
4. Convicted, Acquitted, dismissed without the consent

There can be DJ if prosecution appeals or identical case

- Can the proscuion appeal in the judgment of acquittal?

General Rule: The People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be
placed thereby in double jeopardy."

1. People v. Balisacan – few cases where SC reversed the judgment of

acquittal – Appeal was heeded because there is no DJ since no plea yet
  Plead guilty – instead of presenting mitigating – presented
exculpatory self defense – Acquittal – SC reversed judgment of
acquittal
 Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed
to prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete self-
defense. Said testimony, therefore as the court a quo recognized in
its decision — had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the
court a quo should have required him to plead anew on the charge,
or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him.
This was not done.
 it follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the
time the court a quo rendered its judgment of acquittal,

Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the
evidence does not show that defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; but dismissal
does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissals
terminate the proceedings because of violation of the technical rules, either because the
court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the
offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or
information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc.

Judgment of dismissal may be appealed

1. It is on the motion of the accused

2. Not dismissal on merits

3. Only Legal question

- innocence of the petitioners.

-

The acquittal will not place in double jeopardy because first jeopardy was not attached
because there is no valid plea.

People v. Obsania
- Rape case
- Move to dismiss because it t charged no offense
- Prosecution appealed
- SC said that dismissal is at instance of the accused (motion of the accused = no
judgement on merits)between the sister requirement of waiver and estoppel
precludes the accused from invoking his rights on DJ – when the dismissal is at
the instance of or with the express consent of the accused – it is an expressed
waiver of DJ

Can there be DJ of punishment same offense when only one offense is charged with
accused? When? Appeal of judgment of acquittal – only one offense involved
PSB v. bermoy case:

DJ may be invoked in 3 instances

1. When accused is charged w. same offense in 2 separate pending cases
2. When accused is charged anew adter convicted or acquitted
3. When prosecution appeals from judgment of TC even if only one offense

Right or repose/ Finality of an acquittal rule to order the judgment of aquittal

The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts
deep into the “humanity of the laws and a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the
citizen when brought in an unequal contest with the State”. The State, with all its
resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an
individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and
ordeal, and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well
as enhacing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty

GR: "any party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if the accused would
be placed thereby in double jeopardy.

GR: the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal made.. will not place the
accused in double jeopardy

1. with the express consent of the accused or

2. upon his own motion.

Exception: (meaning there is a dismissal on merits, 2nd complaint will constitute DJ)

1. insufficiency of evidence and

2. denial of the right to a speedy trial

PSB v. bermoy case:

DJ may be invoked in 3 instances

1. When accused is charged w. same offense in 2 separate pending cases
2. When accused is charged anew after convicted or acquitted
3. When prosecution appeals from judgment of TC even if only one offense

Right or repose/ Finality of an acquittal rule

SC said that The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the
trial court cuts deep into the “humanity of the laws and a jealous watchfulness over the
rights of the citizen when brought in an unequal contest with the State”. The underlying
idea in anglo saxon, -
 State, with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts
to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment,
expense and ordeal, and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and
insecurity, as well as enhacing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found
guilty

- If there would be no limit to attempts to convivt the accused, the accused will just
give up because of frustration not because he is guilty but because he is tired.
Accused will get tired defending himself. This is the finality of acquittal rule.

Mikee: GR: "any party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if the accused
would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.

Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal made with the express
consent of the accused or upon his own motion will not place the accused in double
jeopardy. However, this rule admits of two exceptions, namely: insufficiency of evidence
and denial of the right to a speedy trial

Does the Finality of acquittal rule prohibit the filing of the Motion for reconsideration?
This the issue in Lejano v. People

Lejano v. People Judgment of Acquittal cannot be reconsidered

- conviction of the rtc was stustained by the CA
- when it ws elevated, ca reversed then acquitted the accuse
- Prosecution filed an Motion for reconsideration
- Is MR covered by the right against double jeopardy? Yes! Because in MR also
opens the decision for acquittal so since it has the effect of revisiting again the
judgment of acquittal. It will violate finality of acquittal rule.
- The SC denied the MR because of the constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy.
Mikee:

But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the

accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III,

To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being

punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this
provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged
against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same
offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a
sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of
resources, stamina, and the will to fight.

Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But

the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved
Rule 65 Special civil action Acquittal appeal cannot be bec DJ

- the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a
mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v. Sandiganbayan as authority that

the Court can set aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But the
government proved in Galman that the prosecution was deprived of due process since the
judgment of acquittal in that case was dictated, coerced and scripted. It was a sham
trial. Here, however, Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham review of the
decision of the CA.

Supposing an admin charge is filed against a judge for rendering unjust judgment, SC
dismissed because lack of evidence. Upon the dismissal of admin charge, the complainant
filed an admin complaint in Ombudsman, is there double jeopardy?

Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan

- requires that the two offenses must be criminal in nature

- in the case, the first complaint is administrative in character. The dismissal does
not set in motion DJ. Even same act

Suppose the complaint file a crim complain before ombudsman, after PI it dismissed the
complaint, after that filed again. Same same.

- No DJ in prelimary investigation – to constitute Dj there must be a legal DJ,

which requires that there must be acquittal, convition etc, 2nd, accused Must have
been arraigned.must be filed in a court of jurisdiction

Suppose a crim info was filed against A for killing B, A is arraigned, trial ensued. During
the trial, the prosecution filed 2nd crim info for murder for killing B. 1st info homicide for
killing B, 2nd info filed during pendency of homicide, prosecution filed another criminal
information for murder against A for killing B. DJ?

NO, This was answered DJ (People v. Pineda) Sc said that Mere pendency based on 2
criminal information for the same or identical offense will not set in motion DJ . There
must be previous conviction, acquittal or dismissal of first complaint without consent.
Mere pendency of the 2 criminal info of same offense will not be DJ

Remember that we said earlier

In PSB v, Bermoy,
3 circumstances to invoke DJ— one is when the accused is charged in the same offense
in 2 separate pending cases

How do we reconcile Bermoy and Pineda

In PNB v. bermoy, the stament of the SC to the effect that Dj applies when the accused is
charged with the same offense in 2 separate pending cases is an obiter dictum because in
PSB the main issue is the appeal to demure to evidence.

- In pineda case, this is the main issue whether the filing of multiple complaints
against same accused for same act or omission for identical offenses constitute
DJ.

SC said no because double jeopardy requires legal jeopardy – In order to have legal
jeopardy there must have previous – A,C, DWC

Melo CASE: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE - CONSUMATED HIMICIDE – info was

amended

Whether the second information, filed after the death of the victim, violates the accused’s
right against double jeopardy.

Rule 106, section 13, 2d paragraph, provides that "If it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court may
dismiss the original complaint or information and order the filing of a new one charging
the proper offense, provided the defendant would not be placed thereby in double
jeopardy,

There is identity between two offenses not only when the second offense is exactly the
same as the first, but also when the second offense is an attempt to commit the first or a
frustration thereof, or when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the first information. This rule of identity does not apply, however,
when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the
simple reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the first
prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent.

There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support a conviction for
one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other. This so- called
"same-evidence test"

Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the
injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put him
twice in jeopardy.

PEOPLE V. ADIL

if after the First prosecution a new fact supervenes on which defendant may be held
liable, resulting in altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct
offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new
offense.

The accused may still be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development
changes the character of the first indictment under which he may have already been
charged or convicted. Thus, under Section 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court, the conviction of
the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the original complaint or information when:

(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission;

(b) the facts constituting the graver offense arose or were discovered only after the filing
of the former complaint or information; or

(c) the plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal or the
offended party.

Ex Post facto Law

Ex post facto law and Bill of attainder. Sec. 22. Art. Ill: “No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted. ”]

Salvador v. Mapa

1D

6 kinds of ep

1. Every Law that makes criminal action done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done and punishe such action
2. EL that aggravates a crime or makeit greater that it was ehen done
3. EL that changes the punishment and makes it greater than tha law annexed to the
 crime when it was committed
4. EL that alters the rules of evidence and accepts different or lesser testimony thatn
required when it was committed
5. EL Assumes to regulate civil rights only which in effect imposes a penalty to
something which when done was lawful
6. EL Deprives the person of law defenses of which he was entitled to –such as
previous conviction, acquittal and grant of amnesty – In case of Mapa, incuded
grant of amnesty revocation of this constitutes ex post facto law

Grant of amnesty

What are 3 characteristics of Ex post facto law?

1. Criminal in nature,
2. retroactive in character
3. prejudicial to the accused

Supposing there is a case by govt and private individual. During the pendency of case,
the rules were changed excepting the govt of posting a bond. May this rule apply to
pending case without violating EPL? Yes. – It is only remedial in character (concepcion
v. Garcia) – ex post facto law does not apply to rules of court

Supposing at the time of commission – the penalty of offense is 5 yrs. Before the filing
increased to 10 yrs – is the amendatory law an ex post facto law? No, not retroactive in
character. An EPL is a law that explicitly provides that it shall apply to cases committed
or pending before the effectivity of the law. The mere fact that the law increases the
penalty does not make it EPL, without the express provision that is shall apply
retroactively

Another char is that it shall be prejudicial to the accused

People v. Donato

- Crime of rebellion
- During the pendency the penalty was reduced to Prision Mayor, at time of
commission RP
- It is applicable because favorable to accused.

Difference between EPL and Bill of Attainder

All Bill of Attainder is an EPL, not all EPL are BOA

BOA – criminal in nature, retroactive, prejudicial, dispenses with the judicial termination
of guilt

If the EPL makes a specific person liable without Judicial proceedings then it is an BOA
as well

BOA is usually applied to laws crim in character, retroactive, prejudicial to accused and
dispenses with req of judicial proceedings and penalty is death (tradinionally)

If less than death, the term is Bill of Pains

Under the consti it covers regardless of penalty

US v. Conde

It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in force at the time the contract was
made must govern its interpretation and application.

law imposing a new penalty, or a new liability or disability, or giving a new right of
action, must not be construed as having a retroactive effect.

If a contract is legal at its inception, it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent

legislation.

Ex post facto laws, unless they are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in this
jurisdiction. Every law that makes an action, done before the passage of the law, and
which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action, is an ex post facto
law. In the present case Act No. 2655 made an act which had been done before the law
was adopted, a criminal act, and to make said Act applicable to the act complained of
would be to give it an ex post facto operation.

Concepcion v. Garcia

"The Act in question is not an ex post facto law, as it is not penal in its nature. It has long
been settled that the phrase "ex post facto laws" is not applicable to civil laws, but to
penal and criminal which punish a party for acts antecedently done which were not
punishable at all, or not punishable to the extent or in the manner prescribed.

ART IV Citizenship

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;

[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Poe :

Burden of proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner is not a Filipino
citizen.

Private respondents should show that Poe’s parents were aliens. Her admission thatshe is
a foundling did not shift the burden to her because such status did not exclude the
possibility that her parents were Filipinos.

Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language that would exclude them either.

by constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as natural born citizens was not carried
out, not because there was any objection to the notion that persons of unknown parentage
are not citizens, but only because their number was not enough to merit specific mention.

Recent legislation all expressly refer to “Filipino children” and include foundlings as
among Filipino children who may be adopted

Having to perform an act” means that the act must be personally done by the citizen. In
this case, the determination of foundling status was done by authorities, not by Poe.

Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted principles of

international law which include international customs form part of the laws of the land.

Under international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted principles of

international law which include international customs form part of the laws of the land.

Neither is repatriation an act to ‘acquire or perfect’ one’s citizenship. In the case of

Bengson, the Court pointed out that there are only two types of citizen: natural born and
naturalized

David:

Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution spells out the requirement that "[n]o person
shall be a Senator unless he [or she] is a natural-born citizen of the Philippine

two (2) grounds. First, he argues that as a foundling whose parents are unknown, private
respondent fails to satisfy the jus sanguinis principle: that is, that she failed to establish
her Filipino "blood line," which is supposedly the essence of the Constitution's
determination of who are natural-born citizens of the Philippines.

The Constitution provides its own cues; there is not even a need to delve into the
deliberations of its framers and the implications of international legal instruments.

Assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born unless there is substantial

evidence to the contrary. This is necessarily engendered by a complete consideration of
the whole Constitution, not just its provisions on citizenship. This includes its mandate of
defending the well-being of children, guaranteeing equal protection of the law, equal
access to opportunities for public service, and respecting human rights,

Historical development of our concept of citizenship

- Under the Spanish, the native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands were
identi􏰞ed not as citizens but as "Spanish subjects." Church records show
that native inhabitants were referred to as "indios."
- Spanish Constitution of 1876, persons born within Spanish territory, not
just peninsular Spain, were considered Spaniards. This classi􏰞cation,
however, did not extend to the Philippine Islands, as
- The Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States of
America under the Treaty of Paris, which was entered into on December
10, 1898.
- Treaty of Paris did not automatically convert the native inhabitants to
American citizens. 161 Instead, it left the determination of the native
inhabitants' status to the Congress
In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making . . . a declaration of their
decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they
shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of
the territory in which they may reside
- Pending legislation by the United States Congress, the native inhabitants
who had ceased to be Spanish subjects were "issued passports describing
them to be citizens of the Philippines entitled to the protection of the
United States.
- "citizens of the Philippine Islands" First appeared in legislation in the
Philippine Organic Act,
 all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside
therein, who were Spanish subjects on the APRIL 11, 1899 and
then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent
thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine
 Islands

Philippine Bill of 1902 atus of children born in the Philippine Islands to its inhabitants
who were Spanish subject

- Did not account for the status of children born in the Islands to parents
who were not Spanish subjects. A view was expressed that the common
law concept of jus soli (or citizenship by place of birth), which was
operative in the United States, applied to the Philippine Islands.
- United States Congress amended Section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
- Jones Law of 1916
 Native-born inhabitant of the Philippine Islands was deemed to be
a citizen of the Philippines as of April 11, 1899 if he or she was
"(1) a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899, (2) residing in the
Philippines on said date, and (3) since that date, not a citizen of
some other count
- 1935 Constitution that made sole reference to parentage vis-à- vis the
determination of citizenship.

1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution
- (2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who before the
adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the
Philippine Islands.
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

- 1973 Constitution was the first instrument to actually define the term "natural-born
citizen."

1987 Constitutuin

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) 4. Naturalized by law

Sec. 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in
Today, there are only two (2) categories of Filipino citizens: natural-born and naturalized.

A natural-born citizen is de􏰞ned in Article IV, Section 2 as one who is a citizen of the
Philippines "from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect Philippine
citizenship." By necessary implication, a naturalized citizen is one who is not natural-
born.

To determine whether private respondent is a natural-born citizen, we must look into

whether she had to do anything to perfect her citizenshi

jurisprudential treatment of naturalization vis-à-vis natural-born status is clear. It should

be with the actual process of naturalization that natural-born status is to be contrasted, not
against other procedures relating to citizenship. Otherwise, the door may be thrown open
for the unbridled diminution of the status of citizens

- Natural-born citizenship is not concerned with being a human thoroughbred. That is all
there is to Section 1 (2). Physical features, genetics, pedigree, and ethnicity are not
determinative of citizenship.

- Constitution sustains a presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are born
to at least either a Filipino father or a Filipino mother and are thus natural-born, unless
there is substantial proof otherwise. Consistent with Article IV, Section 1 (2), any such
countervailing proof must show that both — not just one — of a foundling's biological
parents are not Filipino citizen

The presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are born to at least
either a Filipino father or a Filipino mother (and are thus natural-born, unless there is
substantial proof otherwise) arises when one reads the Constitution as a whole, so as to
"effectuate [its] whole purpose."

They must be read in light of the constitutional mandate to defend the well-being of
children, to guarantee equal protection of the law and equal access to opportunities for
public service, and to respect human rights

Concluding that foundlings are not natural-born Filipino citizens is tantamount to

permanently discriminating against our foundling citizens.

They can then never be of service to the country in the highest possible capacities. It is
also tantamount to excluding them from certain means such as professions and state
scholarships, which will enable the actualization of their aspirations

Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws and equal access to opportunities fo

Thus, by definition, they are natural-born citizens.

Being a foundling is not a bar to natural- born citizenship, petitioner's proposition as to

her inability to bene􏰞t from Republic Act No. 9225 crumbles. Private respondent, a
natural-born Filipino citizen, re-acquired natural-born Filipino citizenship when,
following her naturalization as a citizen of the United States, she complied with the
requisites of Republic Act No. 9225.

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law." 240
Commonwealth Act No. 63,

Section 1 (1) that "[a] Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship . . . [b]y naturalization in a
foreign country." Thus, private respondent lost her Philippine citizenship when she was
naturalized an American citizen. However, on July 7, 2006, she took her Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225.
Three (3) days later, July 10, 2006, she 􏰞led before the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation a Petition for Reacquisition of her Philippine citizenship.

The citizenship regime put in place by Republic Act No. 9225 is designed, in its own
words, to ensure "that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship." 2

Republic Act No. 9225 made natural-born Filipinos' status permanent and immutable
despite naturalization as citizens of other countries

Hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the

following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

Natural-born Philippine citizens who, after Republic Act 9225 took effect,
are naturalized in foreign countries "retain," that is, keep, their Philippine
citizenship, although the effectivity of this retention and the ability to
exercise the rights and capacities attendant to this status are subject to
certain solemnities (i.e., oath of allegiance and other requirements for
speci􏰞c rights and/or acts, as enumerated in Section 5)
Those who became citizens of another country before the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 9225 "reacquire" their Philippine citizenship and may
exercise attendant rights and capacities, also upon compliance with certain
solemnities. R
o Reacquisition is not a mere restoration that leaves a vacuum in the
intervening period. Rather, this reacquisition works to restore
natural- born status as though it was never lost at all. SaCIDT
o First is the Oath of allegianve
o Second, compliance with Article V, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution, 251 Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as the
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws.
This is to facilitate the exercise of the right of suffrage; that is, to
 allow for voting in elections.
o Third, "mak[ing] a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public o􏰞cer authorized to
administer an oath. equirements under relevant laws, makes one
eligible for elective public office.
o
Private respondent has complied with all of these requirements. First, on
July 7, 2006, she took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. 256 Second, on August 31, 2006, she became a registered
voter of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan. 257 This evidences her
compliance with Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Since she
was to vote within the country, this dispensed with the need to comply
with the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Lastly, on October 20,
2010, she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the
United States of America and Renunciation of American Citizenship.
o

David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal

- Definition: a legal device denoting to have affiliation
- SC said that Citizenship is the rights to have rights and it is once personal
and permanent membership in a political community.
- The core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political rights that is rght
to participate in the government, the right to vote, hold public office,
petition grievances
4 classes of citizens under the consti
1. Citizen at time of adoptions
2. Father or mother are citizen of Ph
3. Born before Jan 17, 1973, Filipino mothers and elects Filipino UPON
REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY
4. Naturalization

 Not exclusive
 There are grp of individuals --- Foundlings
In the case of Poe and David
Sc discussed the status of foundlings
 Under international law are required to be given citizenship – they are citizens
where they are found. Generally Accepted principle of Internatinal law under
doctrine of incorporation
 The conferment of status of foundlings in Philippines is only provisional
meaning it is only prima facie means disputable
 o IF it could be presented that non of the parents is not Filipino
citizens then this presumption may be destroyed
Found in the Ph – w blue eyes --- child enjoy the presumption
In David case: Not about human thoroughbred, there may be Caucasian that Filipino—
show that parents are not Filipino – not mere physical appearance

First grp: at the time of adoption of 1987 consti

 this refers to citizen already in 1935, 19 consti
 Prior to 1935 consti – citizenship it can be acquired in 2 ways
o Bengzon case – Naturalization and by birth
o Marriage is a derivative mode of naturalization – so it is
covered by naturalization.
o Birth could be jus sanguinis or jus soli
 Jus sanguinis – blood relationship bet parents and child
o Parents can transmit citizenship to child
 Jus Soli – determined at place of birth
 We apply Jus Sanguinis
o Has there been a perioD that we apply Soli? Yes, in the case of
David the Sc discussed the history of Filipino citizenship,
during the Spanish there is no animal called Filipino citizen.
Inhabitants are called indios or Spanish subject. The first time
Filipino was used is on July 1, 1902 under Ph bill of 1902
o Treaty of Paris – all inhabitabts of Ph who continue resides
therein and do not elect to continue as Spanish subj shall be
considered as citizen where they reside
o Ph bill of 1902 – April11, 1899 time of exchange (treaty of
paris took effect)- cut off date – unlike ordinary contracts
traties become effective at the time of exchange of ratification.
Under the traty of Paris Spanish subject has 1 year to elect
o Debate on children born by not spanish subj April 11 1899 –
july 1 1902 –this children not covered by treaty of paris or Ph
Bill of 1902 (bec here the child must be a Spanish subject and
resided in PH) – David case: Jus Soli – Filipino citizens sila --
because were under American protection so we applied
principles in USA
o 1935 consti – limited extent applies jus soli – Art 4 there is 5
grps: grp 2 born in the Ph with foreign parents w condition that
before adoption they have been elected – “Caram doctrine or
principle” why? Look at list of delegates – fermin caram rep of
Ilo Ilo born of Syrian parents migrated in Ph – that provision Is
intended to accommodate him to avoid anomaly tasked to write
consti is not a Filipino – extends to children similarly situated.
– this is no longer principle
o CARAM:Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who,
before the adoption of this [1935] Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Islands.
 o
 3 group child born before January 17, 1973
rd

o The mother must be a Filipino and elect upon reaching age

majority
o What is the revancence of the date – effectivity of 1973
consitutuion – this grp referes to children born under 1935
consti because under 1973 consti children born with Filipino
mother – no need to perform any act to acquire citizenship
 Tecson v. Comelec
o Evolution of children w Filipino mothers
 Under 1935 – they have inchoate right or expectancy of
the citizenship if they have elect citizenship at age of
majority
 1973 confers citizenship - no need to perform any act –
they are naturalize (bengzon v. hret there are only 2
types of citizen, then if not natural norn then the latter
or naturalized)
 1987 did not only consider them Filipino nut also bent
backward – they were considered natural born in
accordance with
o it is presumed that grandfather was benefited by th en mas
filipinaztion
o Are all children required to elect upon reaching age of majority
 In republic v. Lim
 Filipino mother, chinese father – illegitimate
children
 Requirement to elect only applies to legitimate
children, if illegitimate are national born
without need to elect
 Illegitimate children follow the mother’s
citizenship`p because she has full parental
authority
Notes: Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that the
citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the
citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected
Philippine citizenship.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate children born of Filipino
mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention "in a statement to
be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer
oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry

Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino

citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of respondent
who was concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and
Filipino mother were never married. As such, she was not required to comply with said
constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen. By being an
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon
birth.

o Does that mean that a child w. Filipino father, American

mother , illegitmate American citizen born 1935 citizen. Do we
follo rep v. Lim
 Tecson v. COmelec
 FPJ born American mother, father presumed born 1935
consti, illegitimate
 We cannot follow the ruling in republic principle of intl
law because it can only be applied to accommodate
Filipino citizenship or accomdate a child to be a filipno
 Filipino citizenship is accomdating, nut not to deprive a
child
 Under the consti – Filipino if Filipino father no other
requirement – we apply the Ph consti than the GAPIL

Notes: Jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the citizenship of its
mother, it did so for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the
illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the assumption that the mother had
custody,

- Cases cited in this case are mere obiter dicta


o Under CA 625 there are 3 reequisites for valid election of
Filipino
 Legitimate children born of Filipino Mother, born befor
jan 17 1973, reach age majority, express their intention
to elect FC in written statement sworn before any
officer
 Accompanied by oath allegiance to support and
defend the consti
 Registered to the nearest Registry
o When should the elect ph citizenship? Reaching age og
majority – meaning – SC applies under the 1935 consti
 Cases of CO v. HRET, In Re chingL the obligation to
elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of 21
 In Re ching: must be made within reasonably time –
mean within 3 years
o CA 625 requires a foramal election
 Co v. HRET, In re ching
 Both born under 1935 consti
 born to Filipino mothers
 Chinese fatehers
 Both cpa
  Elected in local election
 Participated during election
o In the case of CO – those acts are
already constitutive of election in so far
as respondent ong
o In re ching: Not enough –
o What Is the difference? In Co, the father
of respondent Ong was naturalized when
he was still 9 – meaning applying
derivative naturalization under sec 15
CA 473– respondent ong was considered
as citizen when he was a Minor
Notes:

- The filing of sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for

those who still have to elect citizenship. For those already Filipinos when
the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot
be less binding. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in
public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election
time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature
are themselves formal manifestations of choice for these persons.
- Election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that the person electing is
an alien.
- The respondent HRET has an interesting view as to how Mr. Ong elected
citizenship. It observed that "when protestee was only nine years of age,
his father, Jose Ong Chuan became a naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of
the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he
was then a minor residing in this country. Concededly, it was the law itself
that had already elected Philippine citizenship for protestee by declaring
him as such.
- Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, a
certificate of naturalization was issued to him. During this time, Jose Ong
(private respondent) was 9 years old, finishing his elementary education in
- To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship
when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. He was
already a citizen. Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his
father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9) years
old.
-

o SC said that –applying the case of In re

Mallari that informal election applies to
those who are already citizens of Ph at
the time when the election of Filipino
citizenship comes up
 o Why is there a need to elect when they
are already citizens of PH?
 In order to make them natural
born which means had
respondent Ong did not perform
positive acts, he will only be
considered as naturalized citizen.
Since he participated activities
reserved to Filipinos like entering
into profession reserved to FC,
voting during election, running to
public office – these acts are
binding than the formal election
 In so far as children who are not
yet citizens at the time they reach
the age of 21 have to comply
with require CA 625 – this is the
situation of Petitioners in In RE:
Ching. While he participated this
is not enough – he still has to
comply w RA 625
o In the case of In Re Ching
 Petitioner was born on April 11, 1964
 Ching’s father is chinese and mother is Filipino
 Complied in 1999
 Pet complied wth the requirement in CA 625 when he
ws already 35 – SC 14 years cannot be considered as
reasonable time – it is too late for Pet Chin to elect
Filipino citizenship – can only elect by naturalization
and not election
 The respondent HRET has an interesting view as to how Mr. Ong elected
citizenship. It observed that "when protestee was only nine years of age, his
father, Jose Ong Chuan became a naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he was then a
minor residing in this country. Concededly, it was the law itself that had already
elected Philippine citizenship for protestee by declaring him as such.
 Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be
so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship,
under the compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265
 Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he does, it
would already be beyond the "reasonable time

o In the case of Cabiling

 Pet born in 1935 consti
 Mother Filipino and FATHER Taiwanese
  Age 21 they executed a written statement of election of
Filipino citizen under oath, the also subscribe to
allegiance to support and defend Filipino
CITIZENSHIP
 They did not register to nearest Civil Registry – only 50
years old
 Whether they can still complete the requirements? Yes,
the determinative fact is not the registration because SC
said that register is to annotate and register or notice to
whole world – there are other acts equivalent to register
– participation to activities, introducing themselves as
Filipino
 SC allowed them to complete even after 20 years but
there is a condition as long as in the meanwhile the
have performed activities constitutive of notice,
meaning in the meanwhile they have not registered their
written statement or the sworn oath of allegiance, they
have perform activities constitutive of election to
become Filipino citizens which means that in the mean
time they did not perform any act constitutive of
election the ruling would have been different
 Int the case of Cabiling v. Fernandez, they have
performed activities reserved only to Filipino citizens,
SC said that it is notice as well
 Under Sec 3 of Art IV Filipino Citizenship can be lost or reacquired in the
manner provided by law.
 1. Loss of citizenship.
(NES(21)RCD)
 a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
 b) By express renunciation of citizenship.
 C) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of
a foreign country upon attaining 21 years of age
 D) By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country;
 e) Bv cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.
 F) Bv having been declared bv competent authority a deserter of the Philippine
armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty
has been granted.

 CA 63 Enumerates modes of losing Filipino citizenship with the advent of Sec

4 of 1987 consti – Filipino women who marry an alien shall retain their Filipino
citizenship unlike ca 63
 One of the modes is by naturalization in foreign country. With the advent of RA
9225 can we say that this is repealed? This is no longer a mode? No, CA 63 is
still applicable to naturalized Filipino citizen who subsequently is naturalized to
foreign country. 9225 only applies to natural born citizen – naturalized cannot
avail of RA 9225
 o Under 9225 Natural born citizens who are naturalized in
foreign country can either reacquire or retain their Filipino
citizenship upon subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
and defend the consti and govt of Ph
o Note the 2 operative fact: reacquire – one lost it and gets it
back ; retain presupposes never lost it at all
o We apply REACQUISITION for natural born Filipino citizens
who were naturalized in a foreign country before the effectivity
of 9225 meaning before 2003
 RETENETION – we apply to natural born Filipino
citizens who are naturalized in a foreign country after
the effectivity of RA 9225
 RA 9225 is a repatriation law
o Altajeros v. Comelec SC said that repatriation law’ character
is curative in character and they are retroactive in application
Notes: December 17, 1997, he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation

After he filed a petition for repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171. Thus,
petitioner claimed that his Filipino citizenship was already restored, and he was qualified
to run as mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections

Respondent has not submitted any document to prove that he has taken his oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and that he has registered his fact of
repatriation

Accordingly, petitioner's repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application in

1997. Petitioner was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the
government in the May 10, 2004 elections.

o Under RA 9225 In order for a NBFC to retain Filipino

citizenship after bing nationalized in a foreign country – he has
to execute an oath allegiance to support and defend the consti
and laws and register to the consulate office
o Supposing A is a NBC after effectivity of 9225, lets say Jan 1
2005, bec it took effect 2003.A was naturalized in US in jan 1
and A can retain his Filipino citizenship by subscrining to an
oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution and
laws of Ph. Supposing he only subscribed on Dec 2005 What is
his status fron Jan – Nov? He is a dual citizen – 9225 is
repatriation law – curative in character, it is retroactive in
application. A deemed not to have lost Filipino citizenship. He
is deemed to have retained.
 The act of subscribing allegiance retroacts to the day he
was naturalized in US
 o
o Supposing A was naturalized in 2000, what is the staus of A
from Jan 2000-Jan 2015.
 American citizen. In 2000 he lost his Filipino citizen
and acquire only in 2015 when he complied with the
requirement in 9225
o Another mode – express renunciation of Fiipino citizenship
 Yu v Santiago defined as renunciation made known
distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or
implication
 Pet here is former Portugese and naturalized in the Ph,
after that he renewed his Portugese passport and intro
himself in official documents as portugese national
 SC held that the totality of the acts as expressed
renunciation while not express. SC said that totality of
the acts are inconsistent with the filipino citizenship.
With that regrd he deemed to expressly renounced his
Filipino citizenship
 Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be
displayed when required and suppressed when convenient

o Use of a foreign passport would be express renunciation of

citizen?
 Makiling v Comelec
 Respondent Arnaldo here is a NB and
naturalized in US and after he applied for
repatriation upon the effectivity of RA 9225 he
reacquire his Filipino citizenship –
 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic and executed an
Affidavit of Renunciation

 After reacquisition Filipino citizenship he

executed an affidavit of renunciation in order
that he may run for public office – Under 9225
those who wants to hold public office have to
expressly renounce through affidavit of
renouncation – After renunciation he used his
American passport
 Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration – US citizen
 her bolster his claim of Arnado’s US citizenship, Balua presented in his
Mmorandum a computer-generated travel record – he used US passport


o
 W/N using of passport will lose
  No, use of foreign passport is not one of the
grounds of losing Filipino citizenship. The only
effect of the use of US passport is that he has
withdrawn his affidavit of renunciation of
foreign citizenship
 he used his US passport four times, actions that run counter to the affidavit of
renunciation he had earlier executed.
 Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required to take not only
the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personally
renounce foreign citizenship
 This is distinct from those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are
not required by law to take the oath of renunciation

 By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009, Arnado
was a dual citizen enjoying the rights and privileges of Filipino and American
citizenship.


 He again reverted back as dual citizen – he
cannot run in Public office
o Commonwealth Act 63
 Citizenship can be acquired in 3 modes
 Naturalization
 Act of congress
 Repatriation
 Act of congress – congress enacts a law conferring
Filipino citizenship to specific individual or identified
groups of individual – Andre Blatch
o Frivaldo v. Comelec (1989)
o Proclaimed Governor, petition for annulment on the ground
that he was not a Filipino citizen
 He claim that he reacquire Filipino citizenship b repatriation by actively
participating in the local elections, he automatically forfeited American
citizenship

o
 After being naturalized in US he returned after marcos
was ousted and upon return to PH he resumed his
activities as a Filipino citizen – he run for public office
– accdg to him it resulted to acquisition of Filipino
citizenship
 He claims that by actively participating in the elections
in this country, he automatically forfeited American
citizenship. forfeiture is between him and the United
States.
  such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of
automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines
 such a conclusion would open the floodgates as it were,
It would allow Filipinos who have renounced this
country to claim back their abandoned citizenship
without formally rejecting their adopted state and
reaffirming their allegiance to the Philippines. – LOI
270 Special committed has not yet been constituted

 SC said that no, in order to reacquire, the applicant

should comply with any of the 3 modes (naturalization
whehther as an initial mode of acquisition of citizenship
under CA 473 or reacquisition in CA 63, direct act of
congress , or repatriation)

 The mere fact he resumes his activities does not refer
back
 This country of ours, for all its difficulties and
limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother.
Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with
eager arms its prodigal if repentant children
 returning renegade must show, by an express and
unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love.

LABO V. COMELEC

- Labo was elected Mayor in Baguio

- Filipino married and Australian citizen
- He was naturalized as an Australian after he married an Australian.
- Labo cannot retain public office being a foreigner
- It was not his marriage to an Australian that made him an Australian. It
was his act of subsequently swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the
government of Australia
- It was not his marriage to an Australian that made him an Australian. It
was his act of subsequently swearing by taking an oath of allegiance to the
government of Australia

LABO v. comelec

- Labo was elected as mayor and in a quo warranto proceeding on the ground thath he is
disqualified because he us is an aussie

- Under law of Aussie he is considered a citizen of aussie

- Marriage was declared null and void for being bigamous -
 - Theory of petitioner since he lost his citizenship – declaration of nullity of
marriage have the effect of not losing Filipino citizenship at all
- SC said no, once you are considered as a citizen of another country and
you lost that citizenship, it doesn’t mean you automatically get Filipino
citizenship
- Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or ware to
be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient
- You have to reacquire Filipino citizenship – lost of foreign citizenship
does not automatically vest the lost Filipino citizenship

CA No. 63, which enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost.
Among these are:

(1) naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3)

subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner.

What we must consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine
citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign country.
The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims,
does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.

Dual Allegiance

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt
with by law

Does dual allegiance means dual citizenship?

Mercado v. Manzano

NOTES:

Manzano is both Filipino and Us citizen

DUAL Citienship - Arises when, as a result of the application of the different laws of
two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. It
is involuntary

naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization.

Bernas: Dual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the
laws on citizenship of other countries. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. But
whether or not she is considered a citizen of another country is something completely
beyond our control."

For candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their
certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as
persons with dual citizenship

Dual Allegiance situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. It is based on indicidual’s volition

naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization.

- Provision of RA 7160 that disqualifies dual citizens from running to

elective office to the extent that disq extends to dual citizens that provision
of LGC is unconstitutuional but because what is prohibited by consti is
only dual allegiance
- Dual citizenship happens in cases of conflicts of law:
 When a child is born to a Filipino father or mother in a place where
jus soli is observed
 When a child born in Filipino mother in Philippines to a foreigner
father whose laws considers a child as a citizen of fathers state
 When a Filipino is married to a foreigner whose laws makes the
Filipino spouse a citizen of that state
o Dual allegiance resulting from conflict of laws accdg to SC is involuntary,
SC said that because of conflict of laws, a person can acquire citizenship
of 2 states
o RA 9225 NB citizens naturalized in a foreign country can retain their
Filipino citizenship by subscribing to an oath of allgiance but all
naturalization laws in the world conclude by taking an oath of allegiance
which means when a Filipino citizen is naturalized in US they shall take
an oath but that naturalized in US can retain that Filipino citizenship by
subscribing an oath of allegiance in PH, is that dual allegiance? That is
what is prohib by consti? Person owes 2 loyalty to 2 states?
o No, once the person subscribes to the oath of allegiance to the Ph, it erases
all previous allegiances regardless of the effect of that to other state, Even
if other state does not consider it as renunciation of allegiance in that
 foreign country.Our laws consider that as already null and void. In the
eyes of our law ther is only one allegiance
o Supposing a cadiadate for an elective office the citizenship is being
challenged for not being Filipino. Submitted US passport, does that
categoraically show that candidate is not a filipinoz citzen?
 Answer in Aznar v. Comelec
 Respondent Osmena was being challenge for not being a
Filipino citizen
 Alien certifivate of registration
 Pet presented his American passport to show that he is not
a Filipino citizen
 SC said that that evidence only show that he is an
American citizen but that does not disprove that he’s not a
Filipino citizen
 By analogy the SC said that if a person has 2 brothers
named Mario and jose, if he psoves that he has a bro
named Mario does not mean he has no bro name Jose
 SC said if a student is enrolled in 2 univeristy, proving that
hes enrolled in Uni X doe s not mean that he enrolled in
Uni Y
 In case of Aznar, that only means that he is also an
American citizen but does not mean that he is not Filipino
 Sc said that in order to show hat he is not a Filipino citizen,
petitioner must show non of his parents is a Filipino, or that
he lost his Filipino citizenship under CA 63
 Sc sustained his citizenship

This is distinct from those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not
required by law to take the oath of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of
candidacy already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship.9 Dual
citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required to take not only the Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign
citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public office.

Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are
not. Whether or not a person is considered an American under the laws of the United
States does not concern Us here.

It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his
Philippine citizenship.

hen We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be
"express", it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine citizenship when
there is no renunciation, either "express" or "implied
Bengzon v. HRET

There are two ways of acquiring citizenship:

(1) by birth, and
(2) by naturalization.

CA No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by a former citizen:

(1) by naturalization,
(2) by repatriation, and
(3) by direct act of Congress.

Naturalization is mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As

a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode
for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who lost their
citizenship due to

: (1) desertion of the armed forces; services in the armed forces of the allied forces in
World War II;

(3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time,

(4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and

(5) political economic necessity.

repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippine and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry

oreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen.

In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the
Armed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine
citizenship under R.A. No. 2630

-The requisites before one can be considered as natural born citizen of the Philippines
are:

- A person must be Filipino citizen by birth 


- He does not have to perform an act to obtain or perfect his Philippine

citizenship. 

1F start ng Concept of state13:55

CA 625 RA 8171

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE

REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO
AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THEIR
IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP SHALL MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF
BE DECLARED BY A PERSON NATURAL BORN FILIPINOS.
WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO
CITIZEN

1. Loss of citizenship.


a) By naturalization in a foreign country

b) By express renunciation of citizenship.

c) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance

to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign coun

d) By rendering service to or accepting

commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country;

e) Bv cancellation of the certificate of

naturalization.

f) Bv having been declared bv competent

authority a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently,
a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted.

2. Reacquisition of citizenship.

a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of

allegiance required of former natural- born
Philippine citizens who may have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their
acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign
country.

b) By naturalization, provided that the

applicant possesses none of the
disqualifications prescribed for
naturalization.

c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army,

Navy or Air Corps, provided that a woman
who lost her citizenship by reason of her
marriage to an alien may be repatriated in
accordance with the provisions of this Act
after the termination of the marital status.

d) By direct act of Congress.

RA 9226 RA 8171

AMENDS CA 63 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE

REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN
Any provision of
contrary WHO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE
notwithstanding,
citizenship by reason of CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign ALIENS AND OF NATURAL BORN
country are hereby deemed to have re- FILIPINOS.
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the xxx oath of allegiance to the Republic.

he unmarried child, whether legitimate,

illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of
this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.

ection 4. Derivative Citizenship - The

unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of
this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.
Separation of Powers

Angara v. Electoral Commission

- candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first
district of the Province of Tayabas

- National Assembly passed a Resolution, confirming proclamation of Angara.

- Ynsua filed before the respondent Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against
the election of petitioner,

- The respondent denied petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the Protest."

- Petitioner argues that: the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction Solely as regards
the merits of contested elections to the National Assembly, and that the Constitution
excludes from said jurisdiction the power to regulate the proceedings of said election
contests

- which power has been reserved to the Legislative Department of the Government or the
National Assembly.

Whether or not the Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the herein
petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the
National Assembly.

- The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of

government.
- Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.
- But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept
separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other.
- The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments
of the government.
- The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and
the subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of
determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to
the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly
 - The creation of the Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain
evils of which the framers of our Constitution were cognizant.
- The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an
implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly.
- Thee power to regulate on the part of the National Assembly in procedural
matters will inevitably lead to the ultimate control by the Assembly of the
entire proceedings of the Electoral Commission, and, by indirection, to the
entire abrogation of the constitutional grant.

In re Manzano:

- Judge Manzano was designated member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial

Committee on Justice by the Provincial Governor.
- receive complaints and make recommendations towards the speedy
disposition of cases of detainees,
 The committee performs administrative functions, that is, functions
which “involve the regulation and control over the conduct mand
affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of
rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature
or such as are devoted upon the administrative agency by the
organic law of its existence.
 Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial
or administrative functions
- This declaration does not mean that RTC Judges should adopt an attitude
of monastic insensibility or unbecoming indifference to Province/City
Committee on Justice.
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government.
Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to
the solidity of such structure.
 As public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as
non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC
judges should render assistance to said Committees to help
promote the laudable purposes for which they exist, but only when
such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of
their judicial duties.


Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

 - But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in
bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the
judicial departments of the government.
- In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks
of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred
- n cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers
between the several departments and among the integral or constituent
units thereof.
- Constitution is a definition of the powers of government.
- The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary
as the rational way.
- Judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments;
- it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only
asserts the solemn and sacred obligation ssigned to it by the Constitution
to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution
- This power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies
to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and
limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota
presente

Casibang v. Aquino

- Respondent Remigio Yu was proclaimed as the elected Mayor

- Yu moved to dismiss the election protest on the ground that the trial court
had lost jurisdiction
- a political question has intervened in the case.
 electoral protest case herein involved has remained a justiciable
controversy.
 The term "political question" connotes what it means in ordinary
parlance, namely, a question of policy.
- It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a
particular measure"

Tanada v. Cuenco

- Lorenzo M. Tañada and Diosdado Macapagal sought to oust respondent

senators from the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- Petitioners allege that the that the Committee on Rules for the Senate, in
nominating Senators as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, had
"acted absolutely without power or color of authority and in clear violation
.. of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution

- It is frequently used to designate all questions that lie outside the scope of
 the judicial questions, which under the constitution, are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government. Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution";
that "in assuming membership in the Senate Electoral Tribunal, by taking
the

- not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon the policy of
legislative or executive action
- here, therefore, discretionary powers are granted by the Constitution or by
statute, the manner in which those powers are exercised is not subject to
judicial review.
- It is well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the
province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such
questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or
statutory provisions.
- uestion whether certain amendments to the Constitution are invalid for
non- compliance with the procedure therein prescribed, is not a political
one and may be settled by the Courts.
- ere, the court is called upon to decide whether the election of Senators
Cuenco and Delgado, by the Senate, as members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal, upon nomination by Senator Primicias-a member and
spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate-
on behalf of its Committee on Rules, contravenes the constitutional
mandate that said members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be
chosen "upon
- nomination .. of the party having the second largest number of votes" in
the Senate, and hence, is null and void. This is not a political question. The
Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in the choice of
members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
- The exercise of its power thereon is subject to constitutional limitations
which are claimed to be mandatory in nature.

Sandidad
- Neither the Constitution nor RA 6646 can be construed to mean that the Comelec has
also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners
themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.

- Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are
neither the franchise holders nor the candidates.

- Comelec was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises,
permits, or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities,
media communication or information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space,
and the right to reply

Daza v. Singson

Contends that the organization of the LDP cannot affect the composition of the
Commission on Appointments because LDP is not a registered part

The question is justiciable. The issue is one of legality not of wisdom. The ascertainment
of the manner of forming the Commission on Appointments is distinct from the
discretion of the parties to designate there representatives.

DELEGATION OF POWERS

“Potestas delegata non potest delegare”,

Ynot v. IAC
- EO. 626 A which prohibits transportation of a carabao or carabeef from
one province to another
- stained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be
produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond.
- He challenged the exercise of legislative power of Marcos

Eastern shipping

Araneta v. Dinglasan

- Araneta is being charged for allegedly violating of Executive Order 62

- EO 62 was issued by virtue of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 671 which
he claimed ceased to exist
- A 671, which granted emergency powers to the president, became
inoperative ex proprio vigore when Congress met in regular session on
May 25, 1946,
- n setting the first regular session of Congress instead of the first special
session which preceded it as the point of expiration of the Act
- If a new and different law were necessary to terminate the delegation, the
period for the delegation, it has been correctly pointed out, would be
unlimited, indefinite, negative and uncertain;
- Legislative delegations take nowadays, is the line between delegation and
abdication to be maintained? Only, I urge, by rendering the
delegatedpowers recoverable without the consent of the delegate
- Under the 1935 Constitution, Delegated Emergency Powers Cease When
the Congress Meets in Regular Session
- Congress is in the unobstructed exercise of its authority is the fact that
there would be two legislative bodies operating over the same field,
legislating concurrently and simultaneously, mutually nullifying each
 other's actions.
- Congress by a two-third vote could repeal executive orders promulgated
by the President during congressional recess, and the President in turn
could treat in the same manner, between sessions of Congress, laws
enacted by the latter.
- Commonwealth Act No. 671 became inoperative when Congress met in
regular session on May 25, 1946, and that Executive Orders Nos. 62, 192,
225 and 226 were issued without a0authority of law.

In a special session, the Congress may "consider general legislation or only such subjects
as he (President) may designate."

-
-

Legislative

Initiative
- power of the people to propose amendments in the constitution
- power to propse and enact laws hroudg an election called for the
purpose

Political jurisprudence 1F start ng Concept of state13:55