Reading assignment:  In this case, what are the tools/rules laid down by the

Up to Doctrine of State Immunity Supreme Court in the interpretation of the

Constitution?
 What is a constitution?  How do we apply the verba legis tool?
 How did the Supreme Court define the constitution in  Under the ratio legis tool, can the courts use
the case of Manila Prince vs. GSIS? secondary materials in the construction of the
 What are the 4 characteristics of a constitution under constitution?
that same case? - No. The 3 tools must be exhausted first before
 Marcos vs. Manglapus: Constitution is a social using secondary materials.
contract  Who are the framers of the Constitution?
 What are the 3 purposes of a constitution in the case - The people.
of Manila Prince?  In determining the intent of the people, can the
 In Manila Prince, what is the Doctrine of courts use the deliberations of the constitutional
Constitutional Supremacy? commission?
 In so far as the Constitution is concerned, do we - No. The courts must confine the interpretation
apply the principle that a later legislation will prevail to the four corners of the Constitution.
over an earlier one?  In the case of Francisco, when should the 1–year ban
 What gives the Constitution the characteristic of rule be counted?
immutability? - From the time of the referral of the complaint to
 Case of Van Dorn: Discussed by Atty. the House Committee on Justice, which was on
 Being a paramount law, can we now say that all rights August 5, 2003.
emanate from the Constitution? (Oposa vs. Factoran)  Atty.: In the case of Gutierrez vs. HoR, the Supreme
 What are the different kinds of a constitution? Court held that when 2 complaints are filed by either a
Distinguish. Member of the House of Representatives or any
 What kind of constitution is the 1987 Constitution? Filipino citizen on different dates, and are
 What are the essential qualities of a good written endorsed/transmitted/referred to the House
constitution? Committee on Justice at the same time, the
 Is it ideal for a constitution to be permanent? Or just “impeachment proceedings” shall be deemed to have
resilient? been initiated at the time of the referral of the
 What are the essential parts of a written constitution? complaints to the House Committee on Justice.
Examples of each?  Candle – matchstick analogy by the Supreme Court in
 What is the general rule in determining whether or the case of Gutierrez:
not a constitutional provision is self-executing or non- - Impeachment complaint is a matchstick that
self-executing as provided in Manila Prince vs. GSIS? kindles the candle of impeachment
- If there is no doubt, as it is. proceedings. Once the matchstick is lit, that
 What are the factual circumstances in that case? doesn’t mean that the candle is already lit. We
 Difference between self-executing vs. non-self- have to wait for the matchstick to reach the
executing provision? candle. Once the flame of the matchstick
 In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of self reaches the candle, the impeachment
or non-self-executing provision? proceedings have started.
 Why? What is the reason provided by the Supreme - There are several ways of lighting that candle.
Court? One way is to light that candle with one
 Atty.: Perfect example is the prohibition against matchstick (complaint). It may also be lit by two
political dynasty. matchsticks. As long as the two matchsticks will
 What are the relevant facts in the case of Francisco vs. reach the candle at the same time, those two
HoR? matchsticks may light the candle, or in this case,
initiate the impeachment proceedings.

Page 1 of 67
 How many Constitutions have we had so far? - If the proposed change will modify a substantial
 Discussion of previous Constitutions by Atty. Gabriel… number of provisions in the Constitution, even if
 When did the 1987 Constitution? it did not change the governmental structure,
 What happened on February 2, 1987? the proposed change is a revision.
 De Leon vs. Esguerra
 The 1987 Constitution itself provides that it shall take Next meeting: Same HW
effect immediately after its ratification. That is why the [We will start with the case of Gonzales vs. COMELEC.]
effectivity date was February 2, 1987. But owing to the
right of the people to due process, can it not be argued
that the Constitution shall have been effective on the
day when the people where informed that a new
Constitution is already ratified, i.e., on the day of
proclamation (February 11, 1987)?
- No. The Constitution is a social contract. It shall
have been effective on the day when the people
entered into such contract affecting their rights.
 Supposing there is no express provision in the
Constitution as to its effectivity date, what should be
the rule then?
- Still on the day of ratification.
 Why is that?
- Because it should not be made to depend on
the proclamation or confirmation of the
President, who could conveniently delay the
utilization of the new Constitution by the sheer
act of not issuing a proclamation. That is not
acceptable. The will of one person cannot
defeat the will of the people.

 What are the two types of changes which can be

introduced to the fundamental law?
 Is there a need to determine the nature of the
changes to be made?
 What are the modes of proposing amendments to
the Constitution?
 In the case of Lambino vs. Comelec, what is the two-
part test in determining the nature of the proposed
changes?
 How can the qualitative test be applied to determine
the nature of the proposed change?
- The courts will look into the substantive effect
of the proposed change. If it will vary the
fundamental principles underlying the
Constitution or modify the governmental
structure, then the proposed change is a
revision regardless of the number of provisions
that may be affected.
 How about in the quantitative test?
Page 2 of 67
TERRITORY - SC could have resolved the case this way: the Treaty
 As compared to the 1935 Constitution, the definition of the of Paris is a bilateral treaty, and we were only part of
national territory under the 1987 Constitution is more that treaty by accession because we are only the
general. So can we say that the general definition of the beneficiary. When we enter UNCLOS III, it will be a
national territory results in the release of our claims on the modification of our previous treaties. This is in line
specific territories which are covered by the previous with lex posterior derogat priori, or that prior laws or
constitutions? Is it an implied abandonment of our claim treaties are superseded by recent ones. So when we
over these territories? entered into UNCLOS III, this means that we have
- No. modified our rights under the Treaty of Paris.
 Legal basis?  What are the maritime zones under the UNCLOS III?
- The phrase “all other territories over which the 1. Territorial sea – 12nm from the baselines
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction” in Article The State exercises absolute sovereignty in the
I. same manner that we exercise sovereignty over
our land territory and internal waters.
Magallona vs. Ermita 2. Contiguous zone – 12nm from the territorial sea
 The petitioners contend that the baseline law violates the (24nm from the baselines is an inaccurate
constitution. They contend that under the UNCLOS III, the statement.)
waters enclosed by the baseline are considered ________? The State exercises jurisdiction over customs,
- Archipelagic waters. fiscal, immigration and sanitation laws. Absolute
 The constitution regarded these waters as ________? sovereignty may not be invoked (say for
- Internal waters. example, a murder is committed), because it is
 According to the petitioners, the archipelagic waters are outside our jurisdiction.
subject to the right of innocent passage under international 3. Exclusive Economic Zone – 200nm from the
law. They contend that it opens our internal waters to the baselines
risk of nuclear weapons and other crimes committed within The State exercises the right to exploit living and
our national territory. Did the SC agree? non-living resources.
- No. Regardless of whether these waters are  How do we determine the baselines?
considered as internal waters or archipelagic waters, - The outermost points of the outermost islands and drying
the obligations imposed upon the archipelagic state reefs shall be connected with straight baselines. RA 9522
are the same. Even if it is still considered as internal defines the coordinates for the base points.
waters, it is still subject to the right of innocent  There are limitations under UNCLOS III for the drawing of
passage. By our membership in the United Nations, straight baselines which justify the non-inclusion of the
we are bound to observe the rules particularly the Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Group of Islands. In the
right of innocent passage. deliberations of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Santiago
 Another argument in the case is that RA 9522 and the explained why we cannot enclose these groups of islands
UNCLOS III dismembers part of our national territory. Did the with the nearest point in Zambales. What is the reason
SC agree? according to Senator Santiago?
- No. It doesn’t concern the acquisition or loss of our - Because Article 47(2 to 3) UNCLOS III would be
national territory. It only defines the maritime rights violated, which provides that “the drawing of such
of coastal states. It doesn’t concern land territory, baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent
but only defines the extent of the maritime zones. from the general configuration of the archipelago.”
Entering into a multi-lateral treaty and even the “The length of the baselines shall not exceed 100nm,
enactment of laws are not traditional modes of save for the 3% of the total number of baselines
acquiring or losing territories. which can reach up to 125 nm.”
 How then are territories acquired and, inversely, lost?
- By prescription, accretion, cession and occupation. GOVERNMENT
 According to the petitioners, some parts of the archipelago
 What is a government?
as defined in the Treaty of Paris, particularly the waters
- The agency or instrumentality through which the will
enclosed by the rectangular coordinates, will no longer be
of the State is formulated, expressed and realized.
considered as forming part of our maritime zones. Did the
SC agree? Bacani vs. NACOCO
- SC held that the bottom line is, we will gain more
 How is a government defined in this case?
nautical miles.

Page 3 of 67
 - That institution or aggregate of institutions by which 1. Public education
an independent society makes and carries out those 2. Public works
rules of action which are necessary to enable men to 3. Public charity
live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the 4. Health and safety regulations
people forming that society by those who possess 5. Trade and industry regulations
the power or authority of prescribing them.  What are the 8 constituent functions according to
 NACOCO’s function is non-proprietary, which is to regulate President Wilson?
the coconut industry. It is governmental in character. But 1. The keeping of order and providing for the
how did the SC rule on whether or not the NACOCO is protection of persons and property from violence
included in the definition of government? and robbery
- Regardless of the functions discharged, how 2. The fixing of the legal relations between man and
incorporated (own charter or general law), wife and between parents and children
government as defined in the Administrative Code 3. The regulation of the holding, transmission, and
shall only apply to public and municipal interchange of property, and the determination of its
corporations, not to GOCCs like NACOCO. liabilities for debt or for crime
 How is the government defined under Section 2 of the 4. The determination of contract rights between
Administrative Code? individuals
- A term which refers to the corporate governmental 5. The definition and punishment of crime
entity through which the functions of government 6. The administration of justice in civil cases
are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, 7. The determination of the political duties, privileges,
including, save as the contrary appears from the and relations of citizens
context, the various arms through which political 8. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the
authority is made effective in said Islands, whether preservation of the state from external danger or
pertaining to the central government or to the encroachment and the advancement of its
provincial or municipal branches or other form of international interests.
local government.  Do we still apply this traditional classification of the
 Is government the same as administration? functions of the government?
- No. The government is an essential element of a - Not anymore. Areas which used to be left to private
state, while administration only pertains to the enterprise and which the government was called
officers who are running the government. upon to enter optionally continue to lose their well-
 The election of a President generally changes an defined boundaries. They must be covered by the
administration. So how and when does a government activities which the government must undertake if it
change? is to meet the increasing social challenges of the
- Upon revision of the Constitution (i.e., change of times. The Philippines has never subscribed to the
government from the 1935 Constitution to the 1943; doctrine of laissez faire, which is originally a principle
from 1935 to 1973 Constitution; from 1973 to the in economics and extended to political law.
Freedom Constitution; and from the Freedom [Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs.
Constitution to the 1987 Constitution). CIR]
 What are the traditional classifications of the functions of a  What is the proof that the 1987 Constitution considers the
government? traditional functions of the government already obsolete?
- Constituent and ministrant. Provisions where the ministrant functions are now
 Distinguish. mandatory?
- Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of - Article II, Section 5: “promotion of general welfare”
the society, and therefore, are compulsory. While - Article XIII – Social Justice
ministrant functions only promote the welfare of the  What are the different kinds of government?
people, so they are only optional, save in two cases: As to legitimacy:
1. When the nature of the function is such that 1. De jure government
private capital would not naturally undertake; or 2. De facto government
2. When by the nature of the function, the As to exercise of executive powers:
government is better equipped to administer for 1. Presidential
the public welfare than is any private individual 2. Parliamentary
or group of individuals. As to concentration of powers from the national government
 What are the 5 important ministrant functions? to the local subdivisions:
Page 4 of 67
 1. Unitary - Political laws are deemed suspended, subject to
2. Federal revival under the doctrine of jus postliminium. After
 Distinguish de jure from de facto. the belligerent occupation, they are deemed
- A de jure government has a legal title but does not automatically reinstated.
have control over the government either because:  Why does the Hague Convention consider all political laws
a. It was deprived of the exercise of powers (i.e., a of the occupied territory suspended during the belligerent
usurper is discharging the power that belongs to occupation?
the de jure government); or - Political laws are laws that govern the relations
b. It has not entered into the discharge of that between the government and the people. Since
power (i.e., governments during transition). there is belligerent occupation, political laws of the
- A de facto government which has no legal title but rightful legal government are suspended because
has control over the government, meaning, it is a the rightful legal government has no control over
usurper government. the government. Hence, the relation between the
rightful legal government and the people is deemed
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh suspended.
 What are the 3 kinds of a de facto government according
to the SC in this case? Laurel vs. Misa
1. De facto proper – government that usurps, by force  What is the reason for the exclusion of the law on treason
or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal on the suspension of political laws?
government and maintains itself against the will of - Insofar as allegiance is concerned, the SC compared
the latter the relationship of the rightful legal government and
2. De facto government of paramount force (aka its citizen during belligerent occupation and the
belligerent government of paramount force) – relationship with a citizen in a foreign country during
established and maintained by military forces who the period of normalcy. The relationship insofar as
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the the law on treason is the same.
course of war - While a Filipino citizen who is in a foreign country is
3. Independent government – established by the mandated to obey the laws of the host state, he can
inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection only do so up to the extent that it will not amount to
against the parent state and maintains itself against an act of treason. Similarly, even though the rightful
the will of the latter legal government has no control over the
 According to the SC, what kind of government was government, the citizens still owe absolute and
established during the Japanese occupation? permanent allegiance to the government or his
- Belligerent government of paramount force sovereign.
 Because of 2 reasons, which are?
1. The government is maintained by an active military Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff
power within the territory; and  The Articles of War is also a political law because it governs
2. During its existence, it must necessarily be obeyed the relationship between the government and its armed
by the citizens in civil matters, such that the people forces. Can we say that during belligerent occupation, the
submitting to that force cannot be considered as Articles of War are also suspended?
wrongdoers, even if the act is not sanctioned by the - No. The suspension only applies between the
rightful legal government. rightful legal government and the civilians, not its
 What is the extent of authority of the belligerent armed forces. During the belligerent occupation,
government during military occupation? In short, what is the both the occupant and the rightful government
effect of belligerent occupation on the laws of the occupied continue to abide by the Articles of War
territory?
- Under the Hague Convention, the belligerent SOVEREIGNTY
government is mandated to preserve and maintain  What is sovereignty?
the public order and safety of the occupied territory. - The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a
As much as possible, belligerent government must State by which that State is governed [Laurel vs.
recognize municipal laws of the occupied territory. Misa]
But it can amend or revise the municipal laws
depending on the exigency of its military forces, and
only to that extent.
Page 5 of 67
 What are the two kinds of sovereignty? Republic, and others that are of the same class as
1. Political – the sum total of all the influences that the laws and regulations with which the word
shape up the government (source: elections, surveys, “processes” is associated.
ideologies of the incumbent president) - “Laws” – legislative
2. Legal – the power to issue final commands (source: - “Regulations” – executive
the Constitution) - “Processes” – processes of the legislative and
 What are the characteristics of sovereignty? processes of the executive
1. Permanent  What is the substantive reason used by the SC in not
2. Exclusive including judicial decisions from the proclamation of General
3. Comprehensive McArthur?
4. Absolute - There are already rights vested by those decisions.
5. Indivisible To include judicial decisions from those which are
6. Inalienable nullified by the declaration would mean to deprive
7. Imprescriptible the people of their properties without due process of
 What happens to sovereignty of the occupied territory law.
during belligerent occupation?
- The sovereignty remains. The exercise of sovereignty People vs. Gozo
is temporarily suspended.  Accused contends that the ordinance in question is not
 What happens to the acts of the belligerent government applicable because her property is within the RP-US Military
after the cessation of belligerent occupation? Bases, hence outside the jurisdiction of the local courts.
- All acts of the belligerent government which are - What is granted to the US under the RP-US Bases
political in character are automatically abrogated Agreement is only preferential jurisdiction over
upon the cessation of the belligerent occupation, specific cases. It does not include jurisdiction of
even without the declaration of General Mc Arthur. cases outside those enumerated. It does not
- Acts which are municipal in character continue to be preclude the local government from exercising
in force even after the belligerent occupation, save jurisdiction over cases covered by the agreement
when: over which the US does not exercise jurisdiction.
1. When the rightful legal government declares  What is the doctrine of auto-limitation?
these acts as null and void. - A state, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise
 In the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh, the issue of what otherwise is illimitable competence.
is the effect of the declaration of General McArthur to the Sovereignty is regarded as a property right of the
decisions of the courts during belligerent occupation. He state by which it can enter into an agreement, like a
proclaimed all laws, regulations and processes of any treaty, subjecting its otherwise unlimited power to
government in the Philippines as null and void. The judge some restrictions.
refused to continue to hear the case because after the - As we said earlier in the case of Tañada vs. Angara,
cessation of the belligerent occupation, the previous the SC cited JFK by saying that the concept of
decisions of the courts are already null and void. Did the SC absolute sovereignty is already obsolete in the sense
agree? that a state alone cannot define its own destiny.
- Judicial decisions are not nullified because under the Gone are the days of absolute nationalism, here are
rule on statutory construction, which is noscitur a the days of inter-dependency. By our membership in
sociis, where a particular word or phrase is a community of nations, that in itself is already a
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of restriction of our sovereignty because there are
various meanings, its meaning may be made clear conditions imposed in that membership that may
and specific by considering the company in which it amount to surrender of some aspects of sovereignty.
is found. Since the proclamation provides that “all The Constitution does not allow abdication of
laws, regulations and processes of any other sovereignty but it allows restrictions on the exercise
government in the Philippines than that of the said of sovereignty.
Commonwealth are null and void,” the word  You have learned in your Criminal Law that the embassy is
“processes” must be interpreted to refer to the an extension of the sending state. Does that mean that the
Executive Orders of the Chairman of the Philippine Philippines does not have sovereignty over these areas? Can
Executive Commission, ordinances promulgated by it mean that Philippine soil can be considered to belong to
the President of the so-called Republic of the foreign states?
Philippines, and the Constitution itself of said
Page 6 of 67
- No. They retain their status as native soil, and such STATE IMMUNITY
areas do not become impressed with an alien  What is state immunity?
character. Only that under international law, the - State immunity means that the State may not be
sending state exercises primary jurisdiction over sued without its consent.
these areas. If we consider that as an extension of  What is the basis of the observance of this doctrine?
foreign territory, that would mean abdication of - There can be no legal right against the authority
sovereignty. But if we say they only exercise primary which makes the law on which the right depends.
jurisdiction over these areas, that only means This is also called the Royal Prerogative of
restriction. Dishonesty. The doctrine of non-suability draws from
the political truism that the state as sovereign can do
no wrong.
 Under the 1935 Constitution, there is no express provision
regarding state immunity. Under the 1973 and the 1987
Constitution, specifically under Article XVI, Section 3, the
State may not be sued without its consent. So can we say
that the basis of non-suability is Article XVI, Section 3?
- No. Even without this provision, the doctrine of non-
suability is still applicable under our constitutional
set-up. Under the practical and logical ground that
there can be no legal right against the authority
which makes the law on which the right depends.
 Article XVI, Section 3 is nothing more than a recognition of
what?
- Sovereignty of the state.
 What is the sociological basis of the doctrine of non-
suability?
- In the case of Republic vs. Sandoval as well as in
ATO vs. Sps. David, the SC cited the case of
Providence Washington Insurance Company vs.
Republic, where it said that a continued adherence
to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be
deplored. For as against the inconvenience that may
be cost to the private parties, the loss of
governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the
performance of its various functions, if such a
fundamental principle were abandoned and the
availability of judicial remedy were not thus _______.
With the well-known propensity on the part of the
people to go to court at the least provocation, the
loss of time and resources needed to defend against
lawsuits could very well be imagined. If we allow this,
the state will just end up going to court to defend
itself and thereby ______ its primary function.

Republic vs. Sandoval

 What are the 3 instances when a suit may be (only prima
facie presumption and not conclusive) considered as an
action against the state?
1. When the Republic is sued by name/ title;
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated
government agency; and

Page 7 of 67
 3. When the suit on its face against a government followed the Constitution, then the petitioners do
officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will not need to go to court for judicial relief.
belong not to the officer but to the government.  Is it an absolute principle that the state cannot be sued?
 Ultimately, how can we determine whether the action is - No. It may be sued with its consent.
against the state?  Is the doctrine of state immunity only limited to the local
- If the decision of the court would require the state to state?
perform an affirmative act, specifically, when the - No. It also extends to foreign states.
government would be required by the decision to  If the legal basis of the local state as to the immunity is
appropriate funds to satisfy the judgment. sovereignty, what is the legal basis of the extension of this
 In this case, the Republic was initially named the doctrine to foreign states?
defendants together with some police officers. Can we say - The international law principle of par in parem non
that it is a case against the state? habet imperium, which literally means “an equal has
- No. no authority over an equal,” so as not to unduly vex
 Why was the case not considered within the context of a the peace of nations. [Sanders vs. Verdiano] [The
suit against the state despite the fact that the Republic was Holy See vs. Rosario]
named as one of the defendants?
- Because acts committed without or in excess of
authority are not official acts and therefore even if
the government is sued by name, that is not a suit
against the state covered by the doctrine of non-
suability.
 Other instances when an action is against the Republic but
not a suit against the state within the context of the doctrine
of non-suability?
- When the cause of action is mandamus, while the
suit is against the Republic of the Philippines, this is
not covered by the doctrine of state immunity
because the action is to compel the government to
perform an act required by the Constitution or by
law. Inversely, it also excludes an action of
prohibition against the government officials in their
official capacity to perform an act that violates the
Constitution or the law.
- Tax refund cases are also not considered as a case
against the state within the concept of the doctrine
of state immunity.

Festejo vs. Fernando

 The SC considers action against public officers who take
private lands without going through expropriation
proceedings as a personal tort. It is not a government, but a
personal liability of the erring public officers. Is that still the
controlling doctrine?
- No. In the case of Amigable vs. Cuenca, the State
cannot perpetrate injustice against its citizens by not
following Constitutional mandate, which says that
the state may only take private property upon
payment of just compensation. This is the same
ruling in the case of ATO vs. Sps. David. The state
cannot insulate itself by invoking state immunity.
That is an official liability because the state itself
violated the fundamental law. Had the government

Page 8 of 67
STATE IMMUNITY Does that mean now that whenever the state enters into
Supposing in a contract between the government and a a contract with a private entity, gives the express waiver
private entity for the procurement of fire arms for the of immunity?
Department of National Defense (DND), there is a clause - No. Only as to contracts entered into which are
where the State expressly consents to be sued in any proprietary in nature.
court within the Philippines. Supposing the contract was
signed by the Chief of Staff of the DND. Is that a waiver? What is your basis in saying that? Because money claims
- No. The stipulation is not valid because express may also arise from contracts entered into in its
waiver must come from the Congress. It cannot governmental capacity?
come from the President nor his Secretaries. In - From the phrase “which could serve as a basis of
the case of Veterans Manpower vs. CA, the PNP civil action between private parties.”
and PADPAO entered into a contract, and it was
contended that the contract amounted to a *But isn’t it that before Act No. 3083, that already
waiver of immunity. The SC held that the amounts to implied waiver of immunity? What then is the
contention was not correct. value of Act No. 3083?

How about in the declaration of the President that the We now go to implied waiver.
land shall be subject to private rights. Is that a valid
consent to be sued? Sanders vs. Veridiano
- No. In the case of Republic vs. Feliciano, the SC US vs. Guinto
held that such declaration not being a legislative
US vs. Ruiz
action, is not tantamount to express waiver by
The SC said that in determining whether there is waiver
the State.
of immunity, the entry into a contract is not the ultimate
- Express waiver to be sued can only come from
test. Why did the SC say that?
the Congress.
- The true test is the object of the contract.
- In Sanders vs. Veridiano, the petitioner was sued
What are the 2 kinds of express waiver of immunity?
1. Express waiver of immunity through a general because he made a letter which was contended as
law – applicable to all persons who might qualify libelous. In US vs. Guinto, it involved the
to file an action against the government maintenance of barber shop, a restaurant, the
2. Express waiver of immunity from a special law – apprehension of persons, and buybust
only applicable to a specific person or group of operations. In US vs. Ruiz, the object of the
persons specified in the law, just like in the case contract was the preservation of the naval parks.
of Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine These are contracts entered into by a foreign
Islands (Act No. 2457) state, and the mere entry into these contracts
does not mean that the state is deemed to have
What is that general law which expressly provides for the waived its immunity.
exemption from state immunity?
- Act No. 3083. In US vs. Guinto, why did the SC hold that the state has
waived its immunity from suit?
Which provides that?
- The state is performing these activities (i.e.,
- The State consents to being sued upon any
maintenance of a barber shop and a restaurant)
moneyed claim involving liability arising from
as a regular business. These establishments are
contract, express or implied, which could serve as
open to the public, and anybody can avail of the
a basis of civil action between private parties.
services, and is not limited only to American
- If the COA does not act on the complaint within
soldiers. The state is deemed to have descended
60 days, the claimant can go directly to the court.
into the level of a private person.
- But as to the apprehension of the suspects, it is in
As you may have learned in your Obligations and
the pursuit of its governmental functions.
Contracts, obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-
contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts. Does Act No. 3083
cover all sources of obligations? Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
- No. Only those arising from contracts. In the commencement of litigation, should there also be a
qualification as to governmental or proprietal function?
- No. When the state sues the private person in
court, the court is open to counter actions. In
filing action for reversion (by the PCGG), cannot
Page 9 of 67
 now invoke state immunity when the defendants Attorney General to make a suggestion that the
filed a motion for modes for discovery. That defendant is entitled to immunity.
would be unfair, because while the state can
require the defendants to disclose all evidence Is the process the same for Great Britain?
and facts known to them, the state can hide from - The process is more of a certification.
its cloak of immunity from not disclosing certain
matters which are material to the controversy. In the Philippines, do we have a prescribed procedure
(Subsequently, EO No. 1 was declared whenever international entities are sued in Philippine
unconstitutional because it insulates the officers courts?
of the PCGG from the power of the Congress to - There is no formal procedure. It can be done
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. It makes through a civil letter, a letter of manifestation, or
the Commissioners of the PCGG a preferred it could be done through a treaty.
class.)
What are the two conflicting theories of state immunity?
Does that mean that in all instances when the state 1. Absolute theory
commences a litigation, it opens itself to counter-claims? 2. Restrictive theory – applies only when the state
- No. An exception would be when the state performs its proprietary or jure gestionis
appears specifically to invoke the defense of non- capacity
suability. In that regard, there is no implied
waiver of immunity. Is there a way to still raise a claim against a foreign state
after it has invoked its immunity?
Can the defendant in a case instituted by the state raise - The remedy of the claimant is to request the
all counter claims? government through the DFA to espouse its claim
- No. Only compulsory counter-claims. Permissive through diplomatic channels. In that case, it will
counter-claims cannot be covered by the state not be an action between a private entity and a
immunity. state, but an action between and among the states
themselves. The forum will be international.
Supposing the state is suing for Project No. 1, and the
defendant filed a counter-claim for Project No. 2, is the China National vs. Santamaria
counter-claim allowed? Supposing the Solicitor General filed a manifestation
- No. The counter-claim must only pertain to the recognizing the immunity of an entity sued in local
subject matter of the suit instituted by the state. courts. Is that enough?
- No. This authority rests only on the Secretary of
Holy See vs. Rosario Foreign Affairs and not on the other government
Does the doctrine of state immunity also apply to foreign officers.
states?
- Yes. Under the principle of international law, par Another issue in this case is whether the arbitration
in parem non habet imperium, which provides clause may considered as an implied waiver of immunity.
that all states are equal and therefore one cannot What did the SC say?
assume jurisdiction over the other. - Entering into a contract with an arbitration
clause amounts to an implied waiver of immunity.
How may a foreign state invoke its immunity when sued
in local courts? Do you agree with that position? Because if we do, we can
- The SC discussed the different modes of invoking say now that there are 3 instances when there is implied
state immunity by foreign states. The grant of waiver: (1) state enters into a contract in its proprietal
immunity to foreign states is done through capacity; (2) when the state commences litigation; and (3)
suggestion. when the state enters into a contract with arbitration
clause.
How does this work? - No. The parties involved in this case are GOCCs and
- An international entity or a foreign state that is there is no doubt that GOCCs have personalities
sued in American courts will request the State separate and distinct from the government itself.
Secretary to recognize the immunity. When the Therefore, the implied waiver of immunity cannot
Secretary of the State determines that the entity be extended to these GOCCs.
is entitled to immunity, it will instruct the

Page 10 of 67
Does waiver of immunity automatically make the state
responsible or liable? So can we say that regardless of their formation, an
- No. Even if the state consents to the suit, it does incorporated government agencies cannot claim
not necessarily mean that it is liable. The plaintiff immunity?
must still prove his cause of action. If suability - No. All corporations incorporated under the
depends on consent, liability depends on Corporation Code have the capacity to sue and be
elements, facts, and applicable law. sued, hence they cannot invoke the doctrine of
state immunity.
When the state consents to be sued, up to what extent - While in incorporated government agencies with
does that consent operate? legislative charter, we have to determine whether
- It covers the entire proceedings, from the the charter allows the government agency the
commencement of the suit up to anterior to the power to sue and be sued.
execution of the judgment. Supposing the charter of the incorporated government
agency with legislative charter is silent?
Republic vs. Villasor - We apply the rules as if it is an unincorporated
What is then the use getting the consent of the State government agency. Hence, we go to its functions.
when there is no assurance that the state will comply to If the functions are governmental, not suable. If
any judgment of the court? What is the reason given by commercial, then it is suable.
the SC in requiring a separate consent for the state to be
liable? Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
- Because under Article VI, Section 29 of the NAPOCOR was sued because its officers opened a dam
Constitution, public funds shall only be which resulted in the death of hundreds of residents of
appropriated for purposes provided for by law. Bulacan. Did the SC allow the action against NAPOCOR in
that case?
- Yes, because the charter of NAPOCOR provides
that it can sue and be sued.
Sanders vs. Veridiano - Similarly, in the case of ATO vs. Spouses David,
Why is the immunity extended not only to the foreign the SC allowed the filing of an action because its
states but to their officers in their official function as charter allows so.
well?
- Because ultimate liability will lie on their foreign Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing
government as well. Employees Ass.
How about an unincorporated government agencies?
Public funds cannot be garnished. - The same treatment shall be accorded to these
- Yes. There must be an appropriation in order that agencies as if they were the State.
the public funds may be attached by the courts.
Without regard to their functions? Because in this case,
Supposing the government employee was sued in his the Bureau of Printing also enters into commercial
personal capacity and he was declared liable, can his contracts. Is that relevant in determining the application
salaries from the government be attached? of the doctrine of non-suability?
- No. Even if it is devoted for payment of the - In this case, the SC noted that the Bureau of
salaries of government officers, as long as the Printing is only performing commercial activities
funds remain in the government, they remain to minimally or incidentally, which is ½ of 1%. Since
be public funds not subject to garnishment. the Bureau of Printing, which is an
unincorporated government agency, performs
We now go to government agencies. mainly governmental functions. It shall not be
To determine whether the doctrine of state immunity divested of its immunity from suit.
shall apply, we have to consider the characteristic of the - That implies that if the functions of the
government agency. What is the difference between unincorporated government agency are mainly
incorporated and unincorporated government agencies? proprietal or commercial, then it becomes suable.
- Incorporated – Regardless whether it is Mobil Phils. Exploration vs. Customs Arrastre
incorporated under the Corporation Code or with The SC noted that the nature of the functions of the
a legislative charter, an incorporated government Arrastre Services Division is mainly, or 100%,
agency has a personality separate and distinct commercial, so therefore suable. Agree?
from the government.
Page 11 of 67
 - No. There are two steps in determining the City of Caloocan vs. Judge Allarde
suability of unincorporated government agencies: But in this case, the SC allowed the garnishment of the
1. Determine whether it is discharging mainly funds of the LGU?
governmental or proprietal function. Because the LGU concerned has already set aside funds
2. If it is mainly discharging proprietal function, to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff. In that regard, the
determine the relationship of this proprietal funds are open to garnishment.
function to the governmental function of that
unincorporated governmental agency. If the
proprietal function is indispensable to its
governmental function, it is still immune from
suit.

How about local government units? Are they suable or

not suable?
- The charter shall provide for its suability.

Supposing the charter of a city does not state that it can

be sue and be sued?
- We apply the general provision in the Local
Government Code which provides that all local
government units established under this law shall
have the capacity to sue and be sued.

Supposing that the charter of a city provides that it

cannot be sued? Will it prevail because it is a more recent
law, and that the special law creating that city shall
prevail over the general law? Or will it still be suable
because the local government units must comply with the
mandate of the Local Government Code that all LGUs
established under this law shall have the capacity to sue
and be sued?
- The city cannot be sued because a special law
prevails over a general law.

LGUs created under the Local Government Code are

suable. Are they liable?
- No. The mere fact that the LGC allows the LGUs to
sue and be sued does not necessarily mean that it
openly and unqualifiedly consents to be liable.

Mun. of Makati vs. CA

Supposing the charter of the municipality allows
suability, and after trial, the trial court rendered
judgment declaring the LGU as liable. Supposing that the
LGU has 2 bank accounts, the 1st bank account refers to
the general funds of the LGU, and the 2nd bank account
refers to special funds established to satisfy any award in
the court action. Unfortunately, the 2nd bank account is
insufficient. May the deficiency be taken from the 1st
account?
- No. The bank account established for general
funds cannot be garnished.

Page 12 of 67
 electoral protest as a political controversy. After the
SEPARATION OF POWERS election under the 1935 Constitution, an electoral protest
was filed against the petitioner, and then during the
ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION pendency of the electoral protest, the 1973 Constitution
Often times, there are instances when a specific power was ratified, and under the Transitory Provision of the
cannot obviously be considered as legislative, executive 1973 Constitution, it is expressly provided that all
or judiciary. Is there a mechanism in order to determine incumbent officers shall remain in office until replaced by
in order to ascertain the proper allocation of this power? the President. According to the petitioner, since he is the
- The Constitution has blocked out with deft incumbent officer, then his right to hold the office
strokes and in bold lines allotment of power to becomes a political question, because it becomes
the executive, the legislative and the judicial indefinite. Did the SC agree?
departments of the government. The overlapping - NO. The term “political question” connotes what
and interlacing of functions and duties between it means in ordinary parlance, that is question of
the several departments, however, sometimes policy. It refers to those controversies which,
makes it hard to say just where the one leaves off under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
and the other begins. In times of social people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
disquietude or political excitement, the great which full discretionary authority has been
landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. the government.
- In times of conflict, the judicial department is the - If the vortex of the controversy is the wisdom, not
only constitutional organ which can be called the legality of a particular act, then it is beyond
upon to determine the proper allocation of the province of the courts of justice.
powers between the several departments and
among the integral or constituent units thereof. On the other hand, what is justiciable controversy?
- It implies a given right, legally demandable and
Why the Supreme Court? Why not just leave each enforceable, an act or omission violative of said
department to determine the proper allocation of their right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by
respective powers? Why is the SC called upon to law, for breach of said right.
determine proper allocation of powers? Would that not
be tantamount to an encroachment on the constitutional In this case, did the SC consider the electoral protest as
powers of the two other co-equal bodies? becoming a political question because of the Transitory
- It may be considered as judicial supremacy, but Provision on the 1973 Constitution?
the SC was quick to explain that what the SC is NO. The SC in this case distinguished the right to hold
upholding is not its own supremacy but the office and term of office. The SC said that what is
supremacy of the Constitution. considered as a political question is only the term of
- In the US, where there is no specific grant on the office.
SC to determine proper allocation of power, the
SC recognized its own power to mediate actual
controversies involving the exercise its power.
Even without express constitutional grant, it is
the SC that has the authority to determine proper
allocation of constitutional powers.

Can the SC assume jurisdiction over any controversy

involving the exercise of powers of the other coordinate
agencies or departments?
- No. In order that the SC may exercise its power in
determining the proper allocation of powers, the
requisites of judicial inquiry must be present, and
the controversy must be a purely justiciable
issue, not a political controversy.

CASIBANG VS. AQUINO

When can we say that a controversy is political or
justiciable? Because the issue in this case is whether the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution renders the pending
Page 13 of 67
EMINENT DOMAIN cemetery is already a public property. It remains
 What is eminent domain? to be a private property, only that it is devoted
 Can we say that Article 3, Section 9 is the source of to public use. Hence, it may still be expropriated
this power? as long as there is necessity.
- No. It is an inherent power so it does not owe  How about services, can it be expropriated?
its origin from the Constitution. The provision is - Yes.
more of a limitation of the exercise of the  Why? What is the reason given by the Supreme Court
power of domain. in the case of Republic vs. PLDT?
 The bases of police power are salus populi est - Because services are also private property.
suprema lex and sic utere tuo ut alienum non leadas.  Does this include any kind of service?
How about the power of eminent domain? What is the - No. Only public utility service. (See Manny
origin of this power as cited in the case of City of Pacquiao example in the coffee notes).
Manila vs. Chinese Community?
- Necessity.  Does size matter?
 The power of eminent domain is the highest and  In the case of Sumulong vs. Guerrero, the petitioner
most exact idea of property remaining in the contends that the determinative factor in the validity of
government. Why? the exercise of power of domain is the size of the
- Because all properties are considered as property to be expropriated. Did the SC agree?
reserved for future use of the government. - No. The SC already abandoned the Guido
 Is this power of eminent domain the same as the doctrine.
power of expropriation?  Why? What is the practical reason why small
- No. Expropriation is the means by which the properties may now be the subject of the power of
power is exercised. eminent domain?
 Is the question of necessity a justiciable question? - Because if there is a government project and
- It depends. there is a very small property that gets into the
- Exercised directly by the Congress – Political way, that does not mean that the government
- Exercised by a delegate through a specific has to devise a plan in order to avoid that
delegation – Political property. As long as there is necessity, any
- Exercised by a delegate through a general property, big or small, may be expropriated.
delegation – Justiciable  Does taking in eminent domain require that there
must be transfer of ownership of the property
 What property may be expropriated in the exercise of expropriated?
eminent domain? - No.
- Only public properties.  Does taking in eminent domain require that there
 How about properties already in the name of the must be transfer of possession of the property
Republic? expropriated?
- Only the private interest which is attached to - No.
the property may be expropriated. This is  Why? What is the reason given by the SC in the cases
implied in Section 1 of Rule 67 (“If the title to of Republic vs. PLDT and People vs. Fajardo in saying
the property subject of expropriation although that it does not require transfer of possession of the
occupied by private citizen, such fact must be property?
stated in the petition…”) - Because mere burden imposed on the property
 How about properties which are already devoted to constitutes taking in the context of eminent
public use? domain.
- It can still be further expropriated. In the case of  In the case of People vs. Fajardo, why is there taking
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, the even if the property remains in the ownership and
cemetery being expropriated is already devoted possession of the accused?
to public use, but it does not mean that the
Page 14 of 67
 - Because the accused is already deprived of all rule, the parties cannot present evidence that
the reasonable uses of the property. To prevent will vary the terms of a written agreement.
the owner from using his residential lot already  There was no absolute deprivation of all the beneficial
goes beyond regulation and it already amounts use of the property on July 1, 1947. Why?
to confiscation. - Because the owner still derives benefits from
 Why not police power? the property in the form of rents.
- Because here, the property to be taken is not  In Republic vs. PLDT, was there taking?
harmful, it is for beautification. The property to - Yes.
be taken in police power is noxious or injurious.  Was PLDT deprived of all the beneficial use of the
 In the case of People vs. Fajardo, the situation of the property, as one of the elements of taking?
accused is worse than when the ownership of his - No. PLDT can still use the property.
property is transferred to the government. Why?  Why then do we say that there is taking in the case of
- Because he still is not relieved from paying real Republic vs. PLDT when it is not deprived of all the
property taxes. beneficial use of the property?
 In the case of Republic vs. Castellvi, what are the - Di nasagot. Di niya rin sinabi sagot.
elements of taking in eminent domain?  In the case of Republic vs. Castellvi, when did all the
- State must enter the property requisites of taking take place?
- Entry must be for more than a momentary - June 26, 1959
period  Under the rules of court, just compensation must be
- Must be under color of authority based on the value of the property at the time of the
- Property must be for public use filing of the complaint, even if the actual taking may
- Owner is deprived of all the beneficial use of come later. Why?
the property - Because if the actual taking takes place first, the
taking is not under the color of authority. The
 There are several dates mentioned in the case of government is merely an intruder in the private
Republic vs. Castellvi: property.
1. July 1 ,1947  The filing of the petition for expropriation will always
2. June 13, 1956 precede the issuance of the writ of possession.
3. June 26, 1959 - Yes.
4. August 10, 1959  Can there be taking in the concept of eminent
 What happened on those dates? domain before filing of the petition for expropriation?
1. July 1,1947 – Parties entered into a contract of - No.
lease.
2. June 13, 1956 – Heirs of the owner of the Will start with the case of PPI next meeting.
property refused to renew the lease contract.
3. June 26, 1959 – Republic filed a complaint for
expropriation.
4. August 10, 1959 – Court issued the writ of
possession.
 When did the taking happen?
- June 26, 1959
 The government contends that the intention of the
government was to stay in the property indefinitely, as
proof of which, it has introduced permanent
improvements to the property. Did the SC agree?
- No. The express provision of the contract is
more controlling than the contemporaneous
acts of the parties. Under the parole evidence
Page 15 of 67
POWER OF TAXATION How does the progressive system of taxation work?
- The tax base is directly proportional to the tax rate. As
What is taxation? the tax base increases, the tax rate also increases.
- Power to enforce contributions from the subjects in
order to defray the expenses of the government. As distinguished from regressive system of taxation?
- The tax base is inversely proportional to the tax rate.
What is the basis/principle of the power of taxation? As the value of the property goes higher, the tax rate
- Taxes are the lifeblood of the government. decreases.

Meaning? Obviously, the principle behind the progressive system of

- Like the essence of blood to a natural person, the taxation is equity. How about regressive?
government cannot live without taxes. The existence - It is an incentive to productivity.
of the government depends on these mandatory
contributions from persons and property. Sison vs. Ancheta
The petitioners are challenging the simplified income taxation
Aside from taxes, the government also exacts fees. Difference because of violation of uniformity or equality in taxation.
between fees and taxes? According to them, for compensation income earners, they are
- Purpose of taxes is revenue-raising; while the purpose not allowed to deduct expenses. While for those earning from
of fees is regulation. legal profession, the rates are higher. This means that there is
- Taxes are exacted in the exercise of the power of different treatment among these groups of taxpayers, which
taxation; while fees are exacted in the exercise of violates the rule on uniformity and equality in taxation. Did the
police power. SC agree?
- As to the extent of exaction: for fees, it may not exceed - No. There is substantial distinction between
the amount necessary for regulation. For taxes, may compensation income earners and the professional
exceed because the purpose is to raise revenue. income earners. Those engaged in trade or profession
are allowed deductible expenses because they incur
Sison vs. Ancheta overhead expenses; those earning income from
The SC cited known jurists, Chief Justice Marshall, Justice compensation cannot. In order to compensate this, the
Frankfurter and Justice Holmes. According to CJ Marshall, the tax rate for those individuals earning income from
power to tax includes the power to destroy. Justice Frankfurter compensation is lower than those earning income
said that this is an unfortunate remark and he characterized it from trade or profession. Uniformity in taxation does
as …… He concluded by saying that the web of unreality spun not require universal rate. It allows classification.
from the famous dictum of Justice Marshall was washed away
by a single stroke of pen of Justice Holmes that the power to Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works
tax is not the power to destroy as long as this court sits. In the cases of Sumulong vs. Guerrero and Manosca vs. CA, the
Obviously, the two statements of these 2 renowned jurists are SC has already abandoned the traditional or restrictive concept
contradicting. Is there a way to reconcile these 2 seemingly of public use in eminent domain. Any public purpose, direct or
conflicting statements? indirect, is public purpose. Do we also say the same thing when
- The statement of CJ Marshall may be taken in the it comes to taxation?
context of regulation in the exercise of police power. - No. It must be used directly and exclusively for public
For example, regulation of liquors, cigars, to purpose.
discourage their use. While the statement of Justice
Holmes can only be taken in the context of exaction Why? What did the SC say in this case?
through the power of taxation. It does not involve the - Because the road may be used by the subdivision
power to destroy because it is limited by owners only. Even if it will result to some indirect
constitutional principles. public advantage, it will not amount to public purpose.

What are the constitutional principles of the power of taxation Punsalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila
under Article 28 of Article VI? Does the constitution prohibit double taxation?
1. The system of taxation shall be progressive; - No.
2. Taxation must be uniform; and
3. Taxation must be equitable. So is it allowed?
- No.
Uniformity or equality in taxation means that…?
- Things of the same class should be taxed at the same Can we say that the power to tax twice is as ample as the
rate wherever they may be found. power to tax once?

Equity or equitability in taxation means that…? When is there double taxation?

- The burden of taxation is imposed upon those who are - When the same tax is imposed twice by the same
able to pay. taxing authority within the same jurisdiction within
the same taxing period for the same purpose.
Page 16 of 67
Was there double taxation in this case?
EQUAL PROTECTION
- No. While the object, purpose, and taxing period are
the same, the jurisdiction and authority are not the BIRAOGO VS. PPC
The creation of EO No. 1 is intended to investigate the
same.
violations of law and the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of the
Supposing the government enacts a law imposing excise tax on immediately preceding administration at that time, which is
importation of sugar at the rate of 6%, and then the same Arroyo administration. Is there anything wrong with that?
authority again enacts an ordinance imposing additional 2% - Arroyo administration is just a member of a class of
previous administrations. The violations of law and
excise tax on the same subject. Is that double taxation?
- Yes. All the conditions are met. But it is not prohibited the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act are not peculiar
because there is nothing that expressly prohibits only to the Arroyo administration.
double taxation. Therefore, it is allowed. UNLESS it
violates the due process and equal protection clauses But according to the OSG, the reason why EO No. 1 zeroed in on
of the constitution. Arroyo administration is because there are some acts which
are committed by the previous administrations which are
already covered by the rule on prescription. Most of those
documents, according to the OSG, are no longer available.
That’s why EO No. 1 focuses only on the Arroyo administration
because the evidence are still fresh. How did the SC rule on
that?
- The law does not require the impossible. But not all of
the offenses committed by past administrations are
covered by the rule on prescription. Not all evidence
pertaining to violations of law pertaining to past
administrations are not available. In that regard, the
SC held the singling out of Arroyo administration as
hostile discrimination.

The OSG also invoked the rule on under-inclusivenes because

according to the OSG, the mere insufficiency of the law to cover
all evils sought to be avoided does not make it
unconstitutional. The remedy according to the OSG is curative
legislation. So did the SC sustain the invocation of the under-
inclusiveness doctrine?
- No. This doctrine only applies in case under-
inclusiveness results from inadvertence.

What is the reason that made the SC to conclude that Arroyo

administration was indeed purposely or intentionally singled
out?
- EO No. 1 explicitly mentioned the previous
administration no less than thrice. The under-
inclusiveness doctrine does not apply because the
insufficiency of the law is not only by mere
inadvertence. It was deliberate and intentional. In that
regard, it was violative of the equal protection clause.

ALMONTE VS. VASQUEZ

The SC distinguished employees according to their employer.
Employees in the public sector are distinguished from
employees in the private sector. The SC allowed the filing of
anonymous complaints against officers or employees in the
public sector, while employees in the private sector can only be
________ to court by persons who can meet them face to face.
Why did the SC sustained the classification based on
employment?
- First, it is allowed under the Constitution itself. There
is no constitutional obstacle to the filing of anonymous
complaints against public officers. This is in line with
the principle of accountability of public officers.

Page 17 of 67
 - Second, the Office of the Ombudsman is different from How about the classification of Civil Service personnel, as
the other investigatory and persecutory agencies of between officers of the PNP and other Civil Service personnel
the government because those subject to its With respect to the first group, they are allowed to be
jurisdiction are public officials who, through official indefinitely suspended when they are charged with serious or
pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss grave offenses. Would that not be violative of the equal
investigations held against them. On the other hand, protection of the law?
complainants are more often than not poor and simple - The purpose of preventive suspension is not to punish
folk who cannot afford to hire lawyers. but to preserve the integrity of the investigation or the
proceedings. If the police officers are allowed to be in
Employees in the public sector are treated as one class in the active duty, they may interfere with the conduct of the
case of Almonte vs. Vasquez. In the case of Biraogo vs. PPC, the hearing by intimidating or harassing the witnesses
SC said there should be no sub-classification within the class. through their weapons or badge of law. His victim and
So can we now say that all public officers shall be treated the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to
similarly, because they are only considered as one class? constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the
- The grouping in Almonte vs. Vasquez is applicable mere fact that the accused is in uniform and armed.
only to that case. The grouping in Almonte that public
officers are treated as one class cannot be applied to
other cases.

QUINTO VS. COMELEC

The SC sustained the classification of public officers depending
on the assumption of office, i.e., appointive and elective? Would
that not be sub-classification within the class? What was the
purpose of the Omnibus Election Code why it considers
appointive public officers to automatically be deemed resigned
upon the filing of the COC?
- Appointed officials are prohibited by the Constitution
and the Civil Service Law from engaging in any
partisan or political campaigns. For them to be
allowed will affect the loyalty of the office rather than
the self-interest of such appointed officials in seeking
to be elected for office.

Does that rule apply to appointed public officers in the

Executive Department?
- Yes.

Are they not partisan from the very nature of their office?
- Partisan. Same as elective.

But they are covered by the provision of the Omnibus Election

Code? Despite the fact that by the very nature of their office
being appointed by the President and to serve at the pleasure
of the President, they are partisan as well? Would that not
make the classification not substantial?
- Appointive officials are only occupying their office by
the intent of the appointing authority. Elective officials
are occupying their seats through the strict process of
the law.

Their term is defined by the Constitution or by law. Does that

mean that making them deemed resigned to be considered as
shortening their term?
- No. Only shortening their tenure. Their term remains
the same, hence there is no violation of the
Constitution because the law, in making them deemed
resigned, is not shortening their term, the law is only
shortening their tenure.

HIMAGAN VS. PEOPLE

Page 18 of 67
 protection on a person, not a protection over a
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES property.
What is Section 2 of Article III?
- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable What is the nature of the constitutional guarantee against
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any unreasonable searches, seizures and arrests?
- It is personal.
purpose shall be inviolable. No search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after How many warrants were issued in that case?
examination under oath or affirmation of the - 42.
complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
particularly describing the place to be searched and These 42 warrants may be grouped into 2?
the persons or things to be seized. 1. Searches conducted in the office of the corporation of
which the petitioners are officers and stockholders;
and
Section 2 of Article III may be divided into 2 parts:
1. Constitutional guarantee; and 2. Searches conducted in the respective residences of the
2. Requisites of a valid warrant petitioners.

Does the Constitution prohibit all kinds of searches, seizures The petitioners challenged all 42 warrants. Is the challenge on
and arrests? all the 42 warrants appropriate?
- No. Only unreasonable searches and arrests. - No. Since it is a personal right, only those whose rights
are violated can raise the unconstitutionality of the
search, seizure or arrest. With regard to the searches
ALVAREZ VS. CFI and seizures conducted in the offices of the
How did the SC define unreasonable searches, seizures or
corporation, only the corporation, which has a
arrests?
personality separate and distinct from the officers and
- No fixed and absolute meaning but are defined
stockholders, can raise the defenses available to it.
nonetheless in general language. It was defined in one
Meaning, the petitioners have no personality to
word: ILLEGAL. Likewise, the SC defined reasonable
challenge the constitutionality of the searches in the
searches and seizures in one word: LAWFUL.
offices of the corporation.
- The reasonableness of the searches and seizures does
not depend on the absence or presence of a warrant
But the corporation is an artificial being, it has no physical
because searches, seizures or arrests remain
existence, it acts through its officers. So how can an artificial
reasonable even if they are effected without a warrant
person raise its rights if not through its officers, who are the
as long as they fall under the permissible warrantless
petitioners in this case?
searches. Similarly, searches, seizures and arrests
- There must be a corresponding board resolution
effected by virtue of a warrant may also be
authorizing any person to act in behalf of the
unreasonable. One good example: Stonehill vs. Diokno.
corporation. Without that board resolution, no
In that case, the seizures were effected through a
stockholder, no matter substantial the shareholdings
warrant, and yet the SC said they are unreasonable.
they may have, or no officer, no matter how high the
Again, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of
position is with the corporation, can raise the rights of
searches, seizures and arrests does not depend on the
the corporation.
presence or absence of a warrant.

In determining the reasonableness or unreasonableness of PEOPLE VS. MARTI

searches, seizures and arrests, the courts must consider Can this be invoked against any person?
several factors. What are these 5 factors? - No. The proscription against unreasonable searches
1. Purpose of the search or arrest; and seizures may only be invoked against the
2. Presence or absence of probable cause; government and its agencies.
3. The method by which the arrest or search is made;
4. The place searched; and Why?
5. Articles or objects procured. - The origin of this guarantee as provided in the Fourth
Amendment of the US Constitution can be invoked
Is the Constitutional guarantee a protection against the only against governmental acts because essentially its
intrusion of the government to properties? history is to prevent undue intrusion on the part of a
- No. It is primarily a protection on a person. It is not a governmental agency with all its power and
protection over a property. In the case of People vs. mechanism to undertake fishing expeditions which
violate the right to privacy, and ultimately, the
Marti, the SC said that this constitutional guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to domicile of the individual.
the immunity of one’s person, whether citizen or alien, - This is in line with the old song, where it was stated
that it may be humble, its root may shake, the rain may
although included in which is his papers, residence
and other possessions. But primarily, this is a enter, but the King of England there not cross the
Page 19 of 67
 threshold. This is in line with the sanctity of one’s 1. Look for the personal property described in the
privacy. warrant; and
2. to bring them before the court.
How many searches by Mr. Job Reyes in this case? How many This is why only personal property can be the subject of a
times did he open the packages of the accused? search warrant.
- Twice.
- The first time as an SOP. When he discovered dry Under the ROC, what are the personal properties which seized
leaves, had them tested for marijuana, then he invited by virtue of a search warrant?
the NBI to observe the second opening. 1. Subject of the offense;
2. Used or intended to be used as a means for the
Can we say that insofar as the second group of search already commission of the offense; or
constitutes search in the presence of public officers, therefore, 3. Stolen or embezzled items and their fruits.
the constitutional guarantee applies.
- No. Mere presence of the NBI Agents on a look-and-see For how long is a search warrant valid?
act does not convert its nature into one conducted by - 10 days from the issuance.
the enforcement officers.
Warrant of arrest?
The SC also cited Father Bernas in his sponsorship speech in - Valid until served. Not forever. Once it has already
the Committee on the Bill of Rights. What did he say as to the been served, it has served its purpose.
exclusiveness of this constitutional guarantee?
- The Bill of rights can only be invoked against the acts Why counted from the date of issuance and not from the date
of the government but not on the acts of private of receipt, as distinguished from warrants of arrest (the
individuals. However, in some cases, like the privacy of obligation to effect the warrant of arrest starts from the receipt
communication which is included in the Bill of Rights, of the order by the serving officers)?
can also be invoked against private individuals. - The only date appearing on the warrant is the date of
- The protection of fundamental liberties is the essence issuance. It does not specify the date of receipt of the
of the constitutional democracy. And then he made a serving police officers. So if you will count the 10-day
rhetorical question, protection against whom? period from the date of receipt, it can be conveniently
Protection against the State. The Bill of Rights governs extended by saying that the officers have just received
the relationship between individuals and the State, its it, when in fact it was received several months ago.
concern is not the relation between private
individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare UNILAB VS. ISIP
some forbidden zones within the private sphere Are search warrant proceedings criminal in nature? Because
inaccessible to any power holder. In the absence of the title of the case is People vs. _________, which is the reason
any governmental interference, the constitutional why the petitioner believes that search warrant proceedings
liberties cannot be invoked against the State. are criminal proceedings and therefore, only the public
prosecutor or the OSG can participate, private parties cannot
How was the accused arrested in this case? Because I suppose participate because they are criminal proceedings.
he did not put his address? - They are not criminal proceedings. Search warrant
- He was arrested while retrieving his mail. He only proceedings are not issued against any specific person.
indicated in his return address the PO Box. So the NBI While it is titled against the defendants, the warrant is
positioned themselves at the PO Box and waited for not against them. These are like John Doe proceedings.
someone to retrieve the mail from the PO Box. It binds the whole world, it is against the whole world,
because the object of search warrant is not to
We go to warrants. prosecute an individual but to obtain custody over a
What is the implication of the specific mention of warrants of certain personal property.
arrest and search warrants under Section 2? Because aside - They are not criminal proceedings and as such, private
from these, the courts may also issue orders of the same effect, parties can participate in the proceedings.
like writ of possession, writ of execution, etc.
- Insofar as the other orders, they can be regulated or Since private parties can participate in the proceedings, can we
withdrawn either by the SC or the Congress. But the say now that they are civil proceedings?
power of the courts to issue warrants of arrest and - No. It is not concerned with the adjudication of civil
search arrests CANNOT be withdrawn or modified. rights among the parties.

What is a search warrant? How about administrative?

- An order in writing issued in the name of the People of - No. Because the required quantum of evidence in
the Philippines, signed by a judge, directed to a peace administrative proceedings is substantial evidence. In
officer to search a place and to seize personal property search proceedings, it only requires probable cause,
and to bring it before a court. which shows that search proceedings are not
administrative in nature.
In the search warrant, the search officers have 2 duties:

Page 20 of 67
Search warrant proceedings are SUI GENERIS proceedings. - For search warrants, affidavits are NOT enough. The
They are like John Doe proceedings. They are MODES OF judge must conduct depositions in writing (Mata vs.
DISCOVERY. Bayona); and he must conduct searching questions
and answers (Silva vs. Presiding Judge).
Requisites of a valid warrant (under the consti):
1. Must be based upon probable cause; For search warrants, why is it required that the judge must
2. To be determined personally by the judge; personally examine the complainant and the witnesses?
3. Upon examination under oath or affirmation by the - A more stringent requirement is required because in
complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and warrants of arrest, there have already been antecedent
4. Particular description of the place to be searched and proceedings leading to the issuance of the warrant,
the persons or things to be seized. unlike in search warrants, where the complainant will
be examined for the first time.
1st requisite. - Relying on the regularity in the conduct of official
What is probable cause in general? function, the judge may rely on the fact that the
- Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the complainant and the witnesses have already been
issuance of the warrant which are sufficient in personally examined by the public prosecutor, so
themselves to induce a reasonable or prudent man to there is no need to repeat the process.
rely on them and to act in pursuance thereof.
SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
Probable cause in relation to search warrant? Who was the complainant in the initial criminal case of libel?
- Such facts and circumstances which would induce a - Former President Cory Aquino.
discreet man to believe that an offense has been
committed and the thing to be seized in connection She filed a libel complaint against Soliven and the editors and
with such offense may be found in the place sought to publishers of the Philippine Star because according to the
be searched. editorial made by Beltran, she hid under her bed during the
1987 coup. This prompted the issue on personal examination
MANTARING VS. JUDGE ROMAN because the petitioners asked the judge whether he was able to
Respondents believed that only persons named in the search personally interview the President. The judge said no. This is
warrant may be named in the subsequent warrant of arrest. the reason why they are claiming that the constitutional
Mantaring, Sr. was not included in the search warrant, but he guarantee is violated. The SC said no. In warrants of arrest,
was included in the warrant of arrest on the belief that the personal determination only requires personal evaluation of
house where the unlicensed firearms were obtained belongs to the report of the prosecutor and the supporting affidavits.
him. Did the SC agree?
- No. There are different bases for probable cause in The determination of the existence of probable cause rests on a
search warrants and in warrants of arrest. judge. Does that mean that only a judge can issue a warrant?
- YES. If the PURPOSE is to OBTAIN CUSTODY over the
Different probabilities in warrants of arrest? person of the accused.
1. An offense has been committed;
2. The accused is probably guilty thereof. SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO
Difference between the authority of the Secretary of Labor
In search warrant: under Article 38 of the Labor Code and the authority of the
1. The object sought is connected to a criminal activity; Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration under the Charter
2. That they may be found in the place sought to be of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation to issue
searched. warrants?
- The warrant issued by the SOLE is one which is
Since they are based on different probabilities, persons named covered by Article III, Section 2.
in the search warrant may not be the same as those named in - The warrant issued by the BI Commissioner is only to
the warrant of arrest. effect a final order in pursuance to a valid law.
- To be considered as a warrant within the context of
Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. Section 2 of Article III, it must be in line with the
Does personal determination of the existence of probable definition of arrest under Section 1 of Rule 113, and
cause require personal examination of the complainant and the the definition of a search warrant under Section 1 of
witnesses he may produce? Rule 126. In order that it can be considered as a
- IT DEPENDS. warrant that can be issued by a judge, the PURPOSE of
- In warrants of arrest, determination of probable cause a warrant of arrest is to OBTAIN CUSTODY over the
only requires personal evaluation of the judge of the person of the accused, so that he may be held to
report of the public prosecutor and the supporting answer for the commission of an offense. That is the
documents. If he finds probable cause using those kind of warrant that may be issued by a judge.
documents, he may issue the warrant of arrest. If not, - Similarly, if it is a search warrant to obtain custody
according to the SC in the case of Soliven vs. Makasiar, over a property so that it may be used in the
the judge may require additional supporting affidavits.

Page 21 of 67
 prosecution of an offense, that is the search warrant - No. The obligation of the complainant is not to
that can only be issued by a judge. convince himself but to convince the judge. It is not
enough that he himself is convinced.
HARVEY VS. SANTIAGO
The 22 suspected pedophiles were arrested in flagrante delicto The warrant must particularly describe the place to be
after 3 months of surveillance. Out of the 22, 17 were to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. How
deported. One was released due to insufficiency of evidence. particular should the description be? Is it required that the
Another was charged with illegal employment but not description be as to the minutest detail?
pedophilia. There are 3 remaining petitioners. They were - No. Only those sufficient to inform the officers to know
arrested February 7, 1988. Immediately upon their arrest, they which place or items will be searched or seized. (Only
were already taken into custody, they were detained. On March those which the circumstances allow).
4 of the same year, deportation proceedings were conducted to
determine whether they violated the conditions of their stay in Can the officers supplement their knowledge in the insufficient
the Philippines. After the deportation proceedings, the BID information?
concluded that they are undesirable aliens and ordered their - No. The serving officers cannot use their discretion.
deportation. March 7, 1988, the Commissioner issued the They must comply strictly with the order in the
warrant of arrest, intended for another purpose, not to obtain warrant.
custody over the person of the accused because they were
already in the custody of the BID as early as February 7. It PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO
would be superfluous if that is the objective. The purpose is not (Shabu and drug paraphernalia. They also found unlicensed
to prosecute them, but to execute the final order of firearm).
deportation. This power to issue warrants is not exclusive to The 2 questions asked in this case are:
the Commissioner of BID, it is also available to other agencies 1. Is the unlicensed firearm subject to seizure?
(ex: Congress may enact a law empowering the Bureau of - YES. Because it is an illegal article. It is an article in
Customs). violation of the law.

ALVAREZ VS. CFI 2. Is it admissible in evidence?

Difference between oath and affirmation? - NO. It is not included in the warrant. The seizure of
- As to oath, the affiant is invoking an obligation to a unlicensed firearm does not fall under any of the
Higher Being (so help me God). In an affirmation, the permissible warrantless seizures.
affiant is invoking the obligation before the law (no
such sentence). The SC said that a search warrant does not empower a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all articles in
In an oath, does the affiant swear to tell the truth, the whole relation to a crime. In order to be admissible in evidence, the
truth, and nothing but the truth? object must be included in the warrant, or it must be seized by
- Yes. Also in affirmation. virtue of a valid warrantless seizure.

The petitioner contends that the Constitution uses disjunctive In the case of Stonehill vs. Diokno, the objects sought to be
word “or” in the examination of the complainant and the seized are described as “documents, ledgers, books of account,
witnesses. According to the petitioner, examination of the and other documents used by the corporation in its
complainant alone is not enough. There must be supporting transactions”. Similarly, in the case of Alvarez vs. CFI, the
witnesses because the Constitution says “and”. Did the SC description is the same. In the Alvarez case, the SC said that the
agree? description is particular enough. In Stonehill, the SC said that
- No. The requirement of supporting witnesses will only the description is too general. Why the difference?
come into play if after the examination of the - In the case of Stonehill, the SC said that the serving
complainant, the judge is not satisfied of the existence officers can seize ANY document that belongs to the
of probable cause. corporation, whether used by the corporation in
lawful transactions or illegal transaction.
The affiant in this case was examined and he stated that the - In Alvarez, only those used in lending transactions
information that he declares is based on “reliable sources”. Is charging usurious interest may be subject to seizure.
that a sufficient oath? That makes it particular.
- No. The information must be based on personal
knowledge (not personal belief, because personal Difference between a general warrant and a scattershot
belief is subjective and will not hold the affiant liable warrant?
for perjury). - General warrant is one which does not describe with
sufficient particularity the person to be arrested or the
Supposing that the source of the complainant is indeed items to be seized.
unimpeachable. Can we say that that is enough? Supposing the - A scattershot warrant is one which does not specify
source is very credible, somebody who does not tell a lie? the offense which were violated.

Instances of permissible warrantless arrests?

Page 22 of 67
 1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to PEOPLE VS. GERENTE
commit an offense; 3 hours from the commission of the offense is sufficient to
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has include it within permissible warrantless arrest.
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person PEOPLE VS. RODRIGUEZA
to be arrested has committed it (hot pursuit arrests) After the test-buy , does NOT fall. There must be an
(People vs. Gerente); and UNBROKEN link of events from the commission of the offense
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has to the arrest.
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

Additional:
1. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any
person may immediately pursue or retake him without
a warrant at any time and in any place within the
Philippines.
2. Person out on bail who attempts to go out of the
country
3. Bondsman effects arrest when bond is violated.

PEOPLE VS. SUCRO

Under the 1st circumstance of permissible warrantless arrest,
in order to effect this arrest, the commission or the attempt to
commit the offense must be made in the presence of the
arresting officer. What does in his presence mean? Is physical
presence required?
- No. In his presence means that the arresting officer
has observe the commission of the offense through
any of the sensory perceptions.

In this case the officer was across the street observing the
transaction. He was not physically present when the offense
was being committed. Can we say that nonetheless the offense
was still committed in his presence?
- Yes. It is enough that the observed the commission of
the offense.

UMIL VS. RAMOS

In order to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest, the arrest must
be done at the time that the offense was being committed, or
attempted to be committed, or has just been committed. Can it
be effected even if the acts constituting the offense happened
several days ago?
- Yes. Even if the accused is only being treated at the
hospital, he is still deemed committing the act of
subversion.
- This type of offense is continuing in nature. They are
continuing in order to allow the police officer to obtain
custody over the perpetrator, so they could stop
further commission of an offense against the
government.

GO VS. CA
Hot pursuit arrests (2nd paragraph).
It is required that the offense has just been committed. Can we
say that an offense committed 6 days ago will fall under that
phrase “has just been committed”?
- No.
Page 23 of 67
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND 1. Decisional – already includes situational or locational;
CORRESPONDENCE right to independence in making certain important
decisions
2. Informational - interest in withholding information
OPLE VS. TORRES about private matters
Is there constitutional right to privacy?
- No. There 2 aspects of informational privacy:
1. Right to live free without surveillance and intrusion;
So are they only statutory? and
- No. There is no constitutional right to privacy means 2. Non-disclosure of personal information
that there is no single provision that guarantees the
entire scope of privacy.
- In this case, the SC discussed that there are zones of
What is Section 3 of Article 3?
privacy.
The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable, except upon lawful order of the court, or
What are the constitutional provisions that create zones of
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed
privacy?
by law.
1. Section 1 – Due process
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
2. Section 2 – Unreasonable searches and seizures
preceding shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
3. Section 3 – Privacy of communication and
proceeding.
correspondence
4. Section 6 – Liberty of abode and travel
5. Section 8 – Right to Association In the case of People vs. Marti , we have learned that the
6. Section 17 – Right against self-incrimination constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and
seizure can only be invoked against the government. Father
The SC explained that the concept of limited government Bernas stated that the Bill of Rights does not govern the
always included the idea that governmental powers are relations between private individuals. Section 3 of Article 3
stopped(?) short at certain intrusions into the private lives of belongs to the Bill of Rights. Can we say as well that Section 3
the individual. This is one of the distinctions between an cannot be applied against private interference?
absolute and limited government. - No.

What is the two-part test in determining the reasonable ZULUETA VS. CA

expectation of privacy? Did the SC apply Section 3 to the intrusion committed by the
1. Subjective test – a person has exhibited an actual wife against the husband, the wife not being a public officer?
expectation of privacy; and - Yes. The intimacies between the husband and wife do
2. Objective test – the expectation is one that society is not justify the opening of the drawers and office of the
prepared to recognize as reasonable. husband in search for evidence of marital infidelity. A
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
According to the public respondent, there is no reasonable integrity as a person and the constitutional protection
expectation of privacy on transactions with the government, is ever available to him/her.
because under the National ID system, information about - Section 3 of Article 3 can be invoked even against a
transactions of one individual to various government agencies private individual.
may be accessed by the processor of the information. There is
no expectation of privacy insofar as this information is We have learned earlier that both Sections 2 and 3 of Article 3
concerned. Did the SC agree? create zones of privacy. The zone of privacy created by Section
- Even for transactions with the government, 2 is the privacy as to one’s person, houses, papers, effects,
individuals also have a reasonable expectation of while the zone of privacy created by Section 3 is the privacy of
privacy. In that regard, the government must show communication and correspondence. Supposing there is an
that information that they process or that they obtain instance that an item has the characteristics of both papers and
from individuals must be protected. The SC said that communications. Can we say that it would fall under any of the
there are 3 conditions that must be complied with in Sections 2 or 3? Let’s be specific, supposing the item is a letter
order that the government can compel the disclosure (both a paper and a communication). Supposing that letter was
of personal information, which are: procured by a private individual without the consent of the
1. There must be a compelling interest involved in owner. Can we say that the obtention of the letter by a private
the disclosure; individual does not fall under the constitutional protection
2. The law must not be narrowly drawn; and because the letter is a paper, and therefore, even if the letter
3. There must be a rational connection between the was obtained without the authority of the owner, it is
objective of the law and the disclosure. admissible in evidence, because a letter is a paper, and it is
covered by Section 2 of Article 3, and this section can only be
violated by a public officer?
DISINI VS. SOJ
What are the 2 categories of the right to privacy? - The question of admissibility or inadmissibility of this
evidence depends on the purpose of the offer of
Page 24 of 67
 evidence. If the letter was offered as an object - The enumeration says “Dictaphone, dictagraph,
evidence, it is admissible. If the letter is being offered ________________, walkie-talkie, tape recorder. A
as a documentary evidence, it would be inadmissible telephone extension line is not of the same nature as
for violation of Section 3. those enumerated.
- The essence of Anti-Wiretapping Act is the tapping of
NAVARRO VS. CA wires or cables. In extension telephone lines, there is
Aside from the constitution, laws also create zones of privacy, no wire, there is no cable tapped.
e.g., Civil Code, Intellectual Property Code, Banking Secrecy
Law, Data Privacy Act, and the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No. Originally, this is a criminal case. The petitioner asked his
4200). lawyer to listen to the other line while the plaintiff and the
defendant are discussing amicable settlement. When the other
Supposing while we are having this discussion, one of your party discovered that the lawyer was eavesdropping, he filed a
classmates record our discussion through tape recorder. Do we criminal complaint for a violation of RA 4200. SC said no. It is
have a cause of action under RA 4200? not a violation.

What is the reason given by the SC in this case in holding that Does that mean that since the overhearing of a private
the conversation or communication is not a private one? communication or spoken word is not covered by RA 4200, the
1. The communication was made outside the police lawyer can testify as to matters discussed between the two
precinct; parties?
2. They did not take any measure to maintain the - No. Even if it does not constitute a violation of RA
confidentiality of their discussion. 4200, it constitutes a violation of Section 3, Article 3 of
The intention of the parties determines the nature of the the Constitution. The exclusionary principle under the
communication. 2nd paragraph of Section 3 of Article 3 will apply.

RAMIREZ VS. CA Is there a difference between exclusionary rule and fruit of the
Supposing the one who secretly recorded the conversation is poisonous tree?
one of the parties to the private communication or spoken - Yes. The exclusionary principle renders inadmissible
word, is that covered by RA 4200? the primary evidence, or the tree, while the fruit of the
- Yes. RA 4200 states that it shall be unlawful for any poisonous tree renders inadmissible derivative
person to secretly record the private communication evidence or the fruit, howsoever far removed from the
or spoken word. primary source.
- In that regard, the exclusionary principle under
The petitioner contends that what happened between her and Section 3 covers the primary source and the derivative
the respondent is not a communication. It was a conversation. evidence, because the Constitution says any evidence
According to her, communication is protected, conversation obtained in violation of this or the preceding section.
not included. Did the SC agree?
- No. The word communicate comes from the Latin But prior to the constitutionalization of the exclusionary
word signification, which literally means “to share or principle, there was some time when the non-exclusionary
impart” as in a conversation, or the process by which principle was applied, under the wisdom that the criminal was
meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals not supposed to run free just because the constable has
through a common system of symbols (as language blundered. Under the non-exclusionary principle, courts will
signs or gestures). still admit evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution
- During the deliberation of RA 4200, the SC noted that but will impose disciplinary or criminal sanctions against the
the terms conversation and communication were used erring police officer. According to the SC in the case of Stonehill
interchangeably, which means that the intent of the vs. Diokno, is this sufficient to safeguard constitutional rights?
framers of the law include as well conversation, not - No. The imposition of sanctions is not enough to
only communication. safeguard the constitutional guarantee. Only when the
public officials know that it cannot profit by the
GAANAN VS. IAC violation, can the wrong be repressed.
Supposing the private communication between private
individuals was intercepted by a third party through the use of
an extension of a telephone line. Does that constitute violation FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
of RA 4200?
- No. The enumerated devices under the law do not Give me Section 4.
include the extension of a telephone line. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
But the law also includes the catch-all phrase “any other device to assemble and petition the government for redress of
or arrangement howsoever called”? grievances.
- Under the principle of ejusdem generis, this phrase
shall be interpreted to mean similar items as to those BAYAN VS. ERMITA
first mentioned.
Page 25 of 67
The Constitutional guarantees in Section 4 are very important The SC dissected Section 4. The SC explained Section 4 phrase
in a democratic institution. Why? by phrase, word by word. The phrase says “no law”. So that the
- These rights constitute the very bonds of a functional word law under that phrase refer to legislative acts?
democratic society without which all other rights will - No. The word law refers to ALL governmental acts,
be meaningless and unprotected. whether legislative, executive, judicial, or acts of
- Without Section 4, all other provisions in the Bill of administrative officers. The word law stated in its
Rights, from Section 1 to 22 are meaningless and generic sense, not as a legislative act.
unprotected.
The next word is “expression”. Under the previous
Why do we say that without Section 4, all other rights are Constitutions, the word expression does not appear, and it was
meaningless and unprotected? recommended to be inserted by Commissioner Lino Broca.
- Because Section 4 serves as a weapon that in the event Why?
of a violation of their rights, they could petition the - Speech is not only limited to vocal communication.
government for the redress of grievances, and they Conduct is also treated as a form of communication,
could express the oppression and the arbitrariness sometimes referred to as symbolic speech.
which violates their constitutional rights. - The right to expression therefore applies to the entire
continuum of speech, from the utterances made to the
In People vs. Marti , the SC said that Article 3 can only be conduct enacted and even to inaction itself, which is
invoked against the government. In Zulueta vs. CA , the SC treated as a symbolic manner of communication.
said that Section 3 can be invoked even against private - In order to broaden the Constitutional guarantee, the
individuals. How about Section 4? Constitution Commission included the term
- It may only be invoked against the government. “expression.”

Basis in saying that? Because if we use the general statement of The SC discussed several theories and schools of thought that
Father Bernas in the case of People vs. Marti , it includes all strengthen the need to protect the basic right to speech as well
of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, including Section 3. as the other rights under Section 4. What are these schools of
- Section 4 expressly states that no law shall be thought?
passed…which means that Section 4 is a guarantee 1. The political theory on deliberative democracy. This
that laws shall not be passed abridging these 5 rights. refers to the right of the people to participate in public
affairs, including the right to criticize government
action. It also includes a collective decision-making
How do we reconcile that in the cases of Malabanan vs.
with the participation of all who may be affected by
Ramento and PBMEA vs. Philippine Blooming Mills , the decision, and this is anchored on the principle that
the SC applied Section 4 notwithstanding that the parties
the cornerstone of democracy is that sovereignty
against whom these rights are invoked are private persons?
resides in the people.
- In both cases, the SC only discussed the rights to
assembly and petition in order to determine the
According to Justice Brandeis, it is hazardous to discourage
reasonableness of the penalties. In order to determine
thought, hope and imagination. Why?
whether the penalty of dismissal in PBM is reasonable
- It is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and
under the circumstances where the employees are just
imagination; that fear breeds repression; that
engaged in the exercise of their Constitutional right.
repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable
Similarly, in the case of Malabanan, the students are government; that the path of safety lies in the
just exercising their Constitutional right, and yet they
opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievance and
are suspended for one school year. It was only proposed remedies.
intended to balance both interests, the interest of the - In this light, Father Bernas in his sponsorship speech
employer to maintain production, the employees to said that speech may be said to be intricately linked
raise grievances against government abuses. The SC with the freedom itself, because the right to think is
did not say that in PBM, the employer violated their the beginning of freedom. Speech must be protected
right to assembly and petition. The SC only said that from the government because speech is the beginning
the imposition of dismissal is to grave a penalty. of thought. That’s how important speech is. Freedom
Hence, Section 3 can only be invoked against the begins with the right to think, the right to think begins
government, not against private individuals. with speech.
- If a private individual stops another person in the - The SC said that speech that promotes discussions of
exercise of these rights, that private individual did not public affairs or airs out grievances or discontent
violate his right to free speech, but he may be should thus be protected and encourage.
subjected to criminal actions, but not for violation of
Section 4, because Section 4 of Article 3 can only be Under the theory on deliberative democracy, criticism against
invoked against the government.
public officials is a protected speech. In the case of US vs.
Bustos, the SC compared right to criticize government action
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC as a form of protected speech to an instrument. What
instrument?
Page 26 of 67
 - A scalpel. - Insofar as the RTC Judge is concerned, the case is
already terminated because he can no longer change
Why is free speech like a scalpel? whatever decisions he may have rendered.
- Scalpel is a surgical instrument. Surgeons use scalpel
in operations. The doctors use scalpel to cut the flesh AYER VS. CAPULONG
of the patient. Definitely, using the scalpel to cut the In the cases of US vs. Bustos as well as in the case of People
flesh will hurt the patient. In criticisms against public vs. Alarcon, the SC sustained the protection on the criticisms
officials, once the people criticize government officials, on government officials, which means that government officials
these officials will be hurt. But like the doctor, the can be the subject of a public discussion in the exercise of the
purpose of using the scalpel is not to hurt the patient, right to free speech. Aside from public officers, are there any
its purpose is to expose the disease so that the doctor other group of individuals who may also be subjected to the
can treat it. In the case of criticism, the government same degree of public discussion?
officials who are criticized may be hurt. But the - anyone who has
Yes. Public figures.
purpose of the criticism is to expose social ills, arrived at a
problems, so that the people can also cure it. This is position where
Who is a public figure? public
why it is like a scalpel in the case of free speech. - A person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of
attention is focused
living, or by adopting
upon hima asprofession
a or calling which
Does criticism include criticism against judicial officers? gives the public person
a legitimate interest in his doings, his
- Yes. affairs and his character, has become a public
personage.
Does criticism as a protected speech applied to judicial officers - In short, he is a “celebrity.”
the same as any other public officer, which means that what
can be used as criticisms against members of the Congress can According to the SC, there are 3 reasons why public figures
also be used as criticisms against members of the Supreme enjoy lesser rights to privacy. Why?
Court? 1. They sought publicity and consented to it and as such,
- Distinguish. Criticisms as to terminated cases would they cannot complain once they received it;
be the same as to any other public officer. Not so with 2. That their personalities and their affairs had already
pending cases. become public, and could no longer be regarded as
their own private business; and
Why, what is the reason given by the SC the case of US vs. 3. That the press had a privilege, under the Constitution,
Bustos in exposing judicial officers from the same degree of to inform the public about those who have become
criticisms as any other public officers? legitimate matters of public interest.
- The sword of Damocles in the hands of the Judge does
not hang suspended over the head of the individual BORJAL VS. CA First National Conference on Land Transportation
who dares assert his prerogative as a citizen, and to Aside from these 2 groups, are there other groups of
stand up bravely against a public official. individuals who may be subjected to the same level of public
- It is the duty of every citizen to criticize even judicial discussion?
officers. - Private persons who are involved in a public issue.

Is Wenceslao a public officer? A celebrity?

- No. He is a consultant of FNCLT.
Insofar as pending cases are concerned, there is a certain
degree of restraint on permissive criticism against judicial
officers. Why?
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC
- According to the SC in the case of People vs. What are the other schools of thought?
Alarcon, newspaper publications tending to impede, 2nd: Free speech should be encouraged under the concept of a
obstruct, or influence the courts in administrating market place of ideas.
justice in pending cases constitute contempt which
may be summarily punished by the courts. What is this theory about? Market place of ideas?
- The market place of ideas was articulated by Justice
In the case of People vs. Alarcon, the accused wrote an Holmes. He said that when men have realized that
article, published in a newspaper, and in the article, the time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to
accused was criticizing the decision of the RTC Judge in believe even more than the believe the very
Pampanga, which convicted the farmers in that case. According foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate
to the accused, they were just taking what rightfully belongs to good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas.
them, so why would the trial court convict them of robbery?
The case was still pending appeal with the Court of Appeals. What is the best test of truth according to Justice Holmes?
Can we say that that is not impermissible criticism because it is - The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get
not yet a terminated case? itself accepted in the competition of the market, and
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes
safely can be carried out.
Page 27 of 67
 - In a democratic society, there is no absolute truth. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
One’s truth must be able to compete with others’ truth.
Whoever emerges as the victor is the ultimate truth.
- The exposure of one’s opinions to others would allow
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC
another individual to consider, to test and develop his
own conclusions. A free, open, and dynamic market
4th School of thought: Speech as a marker for group
place of ideas is constantly shaping new ones. This identity… how does this work?
should be encouraged in order to improve the status - Speech is a vehicle in order to find those who
quo. share the same ideals, to join together and
3rd school of thought? forward common goals.
- Free speech involves self-expression that enhances
human [Link] of assuiring individual self fulfillment How about the 5th theory regarding the protection of
individuals and minorities against majoritarian abuses?
Can we say that the rights protected under Section 4 are just - It is of great importance in a republic not only to
civil rights?
guard the society against the oppression of its
- No. They are also political rights.
rulers, but to guard one part of the society against
Are they essential? the injustice of the other part.
- Yes. They are essential to a man’s enjoyment of his life,
to his happiness and to his full and complete What are the 2 vulnerable groups according to James
fulfillment. not only right to suffrage but in administration Madison?
of public affairs and discipline of abusive PO 1. The citizenry at large – majorities – who might be
In the case of PBMEA vs. PBM , the SC, in order to highlight tyrannized or plundered by despotic federal
the primacy of rights under Section 4 and property rights, said officials
that property rights are prescriptible. How about the rights 2. The minorities who may be oppressed by
under Section 4? dominant factions of the electorate that capture
- No. These rights are human rights. Human rights are
the government for their own selfish ends.
imprescriptible.

Are regulations for property rights and rights under Section 4 Section 4 of Article 3 is more for the protection of the
the same? second type of vulnerable groups. Why?
- No. Property rights, as regulated by the police power, - The majority does not need the protection, it is
are regulated as long as there is a congruence of a the minority that needs protection.
lawful subject and a lawful means.
- For the rights under Section 4, it’s either a substantial What is the last school of thought, which was used in the
governmental interest or a clear and present danger of case of Reyes vs. Bagatsing?
a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent.
- Free speech must be protected under the safety
valve theory. Nonviolent manifestations of
dissent reduce the likelihood of violence.

How did the SC compare the society?

- Society is like a dam about to burst…resulting in
the banking up of a menacing flood of sullen
anger behind the walls of restriction.

In the case of Reyes vs. Bagatsing, the SC said that it

must be borne in mind that the Bill of Rights is the child
of the Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free speech
lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the
peaceful means for gaining access to the mind. It was in
order to avert force and explosions due to restrictions
upon rational modes of communication that the guaranty
of free speech was given a generous scope. For if the
peaceful means of communication cannot be availed of,
resort to non-peaceful means may be the alternative.
This is the reason why the SC said that there must some
safety valve in order the people can vent their
frustrations.

Page 28 of 67
 she said that “I am not angry, I am homicidal, I am
We have learned under the first school of thought or the suicidal, I am humiliated, debased and degraded. I am
theory of deliberative democracy that public officials may nauseated. I’m not only that, I feel like throwing up to be
be subject to criticisms on their official conduct. But the living my years in the country of this nature. Then she
SC said in the case of US vs. Bustos as well as in the case said, I am no longer interested in the position as a Chief
of Diocese of Bacolod , to be a protected speech, the Justice, if I am to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather
criticism must be specific, and it must be constructive, be in another environment, but not in a Supreme Court of
not only a generalized condemnation of the entire idiots.” Can she be disbarred for making those statements
government setup. Aside from our government officials, against the SC?
are there any other groups of individuals who may be - Article 6, Section 6 of the Constitution, which
subjected to criticisms as well, or public discussions of grants the Members of the Congress immunity of
their life and affairs? speech is an absolute privileged communication.
- Public figures (balikan yung notes sa Ayer vs. Even if the speaker is impelled by malice or bad
Capulong). The interest sought to be protected faith, she is totally protected.
under the right to privacy is the right against
unwarranted publicity or the wrongful Does it cover administrative liability? Or only criminal
publicizing of private affairs or activities which and civil liability? Can we say that while she may not be
are beyond the realm of legitimate public liable for libel, nonetheless, the SC can discipline her as
concern. member of the Bar?
- Yes. It is an ABSOLUTE privilege.
Who else? - The protection extends to criminal, civil and
- Private persons who are involved in public issues. administrative liabilities. The only exception is
(Borjal vs. CA) that the Member of the Congress can be
disciplined by the House itself, which is the House
In the case of Borjal vs. CA, the subject of the editorials to which the Member belongs.
was a Wenceslao. Wenceslao is not a public officer, and
How about qualified privileged communication? What
he has not yet achieved the status of a celebrity, but he is
are the 2 kinds under Article 354 of the RPC?
involved in an issue of solicitation of donations from 1. Private communication made in the performance
various corporations. Can he complain that since he is
of a moral, social or legal duty.
not a public figure nor a public officer, the petitioner
- (As in the case of US vs. Bustos, the filing of the
cannot discuss his activity in his column?
- No. he is involved in a public issue, which means complaint was considered a qualified privileged
communication because it was made before a
that his activities in regard to this public issue
public officer who is authorized to receive the
may be the subject of public discussions without
complaint.)
violating his right to privacy.
2. True and fair report made in good faith without
comments or remarks.
To strengthen the constitutional guaranty on the right to Every discreditable imputation directed on PC, not actionable unless it is a
free speech as well as the other cognate rights under false allegation of fact or comment based on false suposition
Fair commentaries are not qualified privileged
Section 4, the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Court
communication under Article 354. but they are privileged and are
recognize privileged communication. What are the 2 valid defenses against libel
kinds of privileged communications in the cases of US
In the case of Borjal vs. CA, the respondent said that the
vs. Bustos and Borjal vs. CA?
petitioner is liable for libel because his editorials are
1. Absolute privileged – statements which are neither private communication nor true and fair report
absolutely protected regardless of the malice or
without comments or remarks. It is an editorial,
bad faith of the speaker; and
therefore, the statements are comments. The respondent
2. Qualified privileged – privileged only when done
argues that fair commentaries are not included in
in good faith and there is a justifiable motive for
qualified privileged communication under Article 354,
making it; because under Article 354 of the RPC, hence, libelous. What did the SC say?
to be actionable, the defamatory statement must
- The enumeration under Article 354 is NOT
be made without any justifiable motive, or that it
exclusive.
is done in bad faith.
- The concept of qualified privileged
communication did NOT originate from the
Supposing a member of the Senate who, incidentally, is a Revised Penal Code. The genesis of qualified
member of the Bar, delivered a privileged speech during
privileged communication is the Constitution
the session of the Senate. During the privileged speech,
itself. Which means that the RPC cannot limit the
Page 29 of 67
 application of this concept. The concept of - Content-based regulations – the basis of
qualified privileged communication, according to regulation is the substance OR the speaker of the
the SC in the case of US vs. Bustos, rests on speech.
public policy, and looks to the free and unfettered - Content-neutral regulations – only intends to
administration of justice, though often times, it regulate the incidents of speech.
may grant immunity to the malignant slanderer.
What is the test applied in political speeches and when
DISINI VS. SOJ the regulation is content-based?
The SC discussed malice in fact, and presumed malice. - Clear and present danger test.
The petitioner is claiming that in criminal cases, the - The State has a heavy burden to prove that there
prosecution must establish malice in fact, and is an evil, which is both substantive and
presumption of malice violates the constitution, imminent, which the State has the right to
particularly on free speech, and the presumption of prevent.
innocence under Article 3, Section 14. Did the SC agree
that the presumption of malice under Article 354 violates Supposing the government fears that serious injury will
the Constitution? result in the exercise of speech. Can the government
- No. In the usual case, malice can be PRESUMED regulate because of that fear?
from DEFAMATORY words. Privilege destroys - No. In the cases of Reyes vs. Bagatsing and
that presumption. The onus of proving malice Primicias vs. Fugoso, fear of serious injury alone
then lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must bring cannot justify the suppression of the right to free
home to the defendant the existence of malice as speech. Men feared witches and burned women,
the true motive of his conduct. FALSEHOOD and and it is the object of free speech to free men
the ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CASE will amount to from the bondage of irrational fear. There must
proof of malice. be a clear and present danger of a substantive
evil that the State has the right to prevent in
Is truth relevant? Malice must be proven order that the government can regulate the right
- Insofar as public officials are concerned, truth is to free speech.
RELEVANT. Truth is a DEFENSE in a libel case,
provided that he can also prove good faith. How about content-neutral regulation, what is the test to
- In case of private individuals, truth is be applied in determining the validity of governmental
IRRELEVANT. Even if the statement is true, it will regulations?
not insulate the defamatory remarks of the - The Obrien Test, or the Intermediate Test.
malefactor. The law presumes malice. No need to prove
actual malice What are the 4 questions under this test?
In determining valid regulations of the rights under 1. Whether it is within the Constitutional power of
Section 4, the courts apply the 2-tier test, which is: the government.
1. Determine the type of speech, whether it is - In the case of SWS vs. COMELEC, has this been
commercial or political speech. complied with?
- At the core of the right to free speech is political - Yes. It is within the Constitutional power of the
speech. While commercial speeches are also COMELEC to prevent dagdag-bawas and
protected, they enjoy lesser protection, as bandwagon effect in elections. The first 2
compared to free speech. In commercial questions were complied with in this case. It is
speeches, one cannot just claim that his product within the power of the COMELEC to prevent
is the best, without justification. There must be electoral fraud.
some research or data to back it up. In political 2. It furthers an important or substantial
speeches, an individual can claim that his governmental interest.
President is the best President in the world - Is it a substantial governmental interest to
without any substantiation because that is a preserve the integrity of the electoral process?
political speech, and it enjoys greater protection. - Yes.
- Commercial speeches do nothing more than to 3. If the governmental interest is unrelated to the
promote a commercial transaction. The purpose suppression of free expression.
of political speeches is to participate in public - Why was it related in the case of SWS?
discussion, and this is at the heart of the right of - The object of the regulation is to restrain the
free speech. right to free expression. It is not only incidental
2. If the speech is a political speech, determine if the but it is a direct objective, which is to stop the
regulation is content-based or content-neutral.
Page 30 of 67
 release of statistical data regarding the electoral 3. Miller vs. California - Three criteria:
processes. i. Whether an average person, applying
4. If the incidental suppression on the right to contemporary community standards
speech is no greater than is essential to the would find the work, taken as a whole,
furtherance of that legitimate governmental appeals to the prurient interest;
interest. ii. Whether the work the depicts or
- Why is the prohibition of the release of survey describes, in a patently offensive way,
results not the least intrusive means? sexual conduct specifically defined by the
- The SC said that it is human nature that the applicable state law; and
electorate always associates with the winner. iii. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
That is why it is bandwagon effect. Yes, it affects, serious literary, artistic, political, or
but it is not the least intrusive means. There are scientific value.
other ways, which is to punish electoral fraud,
which does not curtail the right to free The SC in this case said that in the end, it is within the
expression. prerogative of the court to determine the nature of the
literature.
Are all speeches protected?
- No. What literature was involved in this case?
- Pinoy Playboy magazines.
In the case of SWS vs. COMELEC, the SC cited a US case,
which enumerated speeches which are not protected. Did the SC consider Pinoy Playboy as smut?
What are these unprotected speeches? - The SC did not categorically declare the material
- Lewd, profane speeches. as smut. The character of the literature cannot be
- Those which by their mere utterance incite an assessed based on past issues. Remember that all
immediate breach of peace or inflicts injury upon the copies of the magazines were burned, and to
an individual determine whether it is obscene or not, what is
- Libelous required is the assessment of facts. We do not
- Fighting words have all the facts because the copies were burned.
- Insulting words
How about motion pictures, are they protected speeches?
PITA VS. CA - Yes.
We go to obscenity.
Regardless whether motion pictures are produced by
What is the meaning of the word “obscene”? local or international companies?
- There is no fixed definition for the word obscene. - Yes. (Ayer vs. Capulong)
There are only tests to be applied.
Can Chinese citizens go to the Philippines and exercise
In this case, the SC discussed the evolution of obscenity in the rights of assembly and petition?
Philippine cases. - No.
1. People vs. Kottinger – the test is whether the
tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to The acts of Sister Fox, who is an Australian, are justified?
deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open She exercises the right to petition the government.
to such immoral influences and into whose hands - No.
a publication or other article charged as being
obscene may fall. Several years ago, there was a Dutch who was arrested
2. Gonzalez vs. Kalaw Katigbak – whether to the because he joined a public assembly against then
average person, applying contemporary President Aquino. Can she claim that this violates the
standards, the dominant theme of the material right under Section 4, because Section 4 is available even
taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. to aliens?
There must be a redeeming value of the literature - No.
in order not to be considered as obscene.
Difference between the two: in Kottinger, even Can CNN go here and say that it is exercising the freedom
isolated passages of the literature may be a basis of the press? Rappler was being de-registered because of
to be declared as obscene. the claim that it has foreign equity?
- Another test in Kalaw vs. Katigbak – average man, - No.
applying contemporary community standards.
Page 31 of 67
The ONLY rights that can be enjoyed by foreign nationals - No.
and corporations are rights of SPEECH and EXPRESS. Not This case is the basis of BP 880. The pronouncements of
press, assembly and petition. By constitutional the SC there are the exact provisions of the BP 880,
restriction, these are available only to citizens. although under BP 880, the LGU can designate another
venue, but the designation of another place must be
We go to assembly and petition. predicated on a clear and present danger.

In the case of US vs. Bustos, the SC said that the right to Is BP 880 content-based or content-neutral?
assembly and petition are the necessary consequence of - Content-neutral.
a republican institution and complement to the right to
free speech. Why are they considered as such? As we have learned in the case of SWS vs. COMELEC, in
- Assembly and petition are effective tools as content-neutral regulations, the standard is only the
feedback mechanism whereby the people can tell intermediate test. Insofar as BP 880, the law imposes a
the representatives what they want and what are stricter standard: the clear and present danger. Which
the things that they do not want. means that the intermediate test is the default test for
content-neutral, but the law itself may impose higher
What is the difference between assembly and petition standard.
according to the SC in the case of US vs. Bustos?
- Assembly includes the right to group and to Does the presence of disorder in an assembly or petition
express. It includes the right to meet peaceably make the assembly and petition automatically illegal?
among themselves for consultation. - No. Mere presence of disorder does not make the
- Petition, on the other hand, refers to the right of assembly illegal.
the people to apply without fear of penalty to any - In the case of US vs. Apurado, the SC said that it
government or instrumentality for redress of is rather to be expected that disorder will mark
grievances. the public assembly of the people to protest
against the government, whether real or
In the exercise of free assembly and petition, can the imaginary because in such occasions, the feeling
government, in the exercise of its power to regulate these is always in a high pitch of excitement. The
rights, outrightly prohibit the use of public places? greater the grievance, the more intense the
- No. feeling, the less perfect as a rule the disciplinary
control of the leaders over their irresponsible
As held in the case of Primicias vs. Fugoso, the SC members.
interpreted the power of the City Government of Manila - Disorder is natural in public assemblies.
to regulate the use of public places like streets, public
plaza, parks, and according to the SC, the power of the Let us distinguish assembly versus strike.
Mayor to regulate these public places may contemplate
two things, which are: PBMEA vs. PBM assembly and petition
1. The Mayor is given the unbridled authority to DELA CRUZ VS. CA strike- work stoppage caused by mass refusal of
issue or not issue the permit to assemble; or employees to work
2. The Mayor is only given the power to regulate the In both cases, the employees stopped working, the
exercise of the assembly as to the place, time and employees engaged in concerted actions. In the case of
manner of exercising the right to assemble, and PBM, the SC said that the concerted action of the
not to prohibit outright the conduct. employees is an assembly and petition, while in Dela
Cruz, the SC said that the teachers were engaged in a
As between these 2 possibilities, how did the SC rule? strike, however they may be called. What is the
- The second opinion must be held. The authority difference?
only contemplates the regulation of the time, - In the PBM, the concerted action was aimed to
manner and place. protest against the government, which is NOT
their employer, like in Dela Cruz.
In the case of Reyes vs. Bagatsing, the City Mayor - The difference in these cases is the relationship
disapproved the application but gave them authority to between the speakers and the recipient of the
conduct the rally inside the coliseum, not in front of the message. In the case of PBM, the speakers are the
US Embassy. Did the SC sustain the authority of the employees of the factory, but the audience is the
Mayor to grant another venue for the conduct of the Pasig Police. In the case of Dela Cruz, the speakers
assembly? here are the teachers, and the audience is the
Page 32 of 67
 government, not as an institution, but as their government does not authorize the Mayor to
employer. disapprove the permit.
- Secondly, the difference lies in the grievances
raised. In the case of PBM, the grievances are the How about the word “petitioning”?
abuses of Pasig police, which are political issues. - It was lifted from the constitution itself
In the case of Dela Cruz, the grievances are (petitioning the government for redress of
working conditions, which are inherent in an grievances”).
employer-employee relationship.
May public assemblies be held in a private place?
Do students have the right to assembly and petition even - NO. A concerted action held in a private place is
inside the private school? not a public assembly within the definition of BP
- Yes. In the case of Malabanan vs. Ramento, 880. Nonetheless, the law permits assemblies
the SC said that students do not shed their held in private places, which only requires the
constitutional right at the schoolhouse gate. consent of the owner.

What is the wisdom behind that statement? What is a public assembly?

- The principal use to which the schools are - Any rally, demonstration, march, parade,
dedicated is to accommodate students during procession or any other form of mass or
prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types concerted action held in a public place for the
of activities. Among those activities is personal purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or
intercommunication among the students. This is expressing an opinion to the general public on
not only inevitable part of the process of any particular issue; or protesting or influencing
attending school; it is also an important part of any state of affairs whether political, economic or
the educational process. A student’s rights, social; or petitioning the government for redress
therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom of grievances.
hours.
What is a public place?
If Reyes vs. Bagatsing was the basis of BP 880, the - Shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue,
case of Malabanan vs. Ramento was the basis of the road, street, bridge, or other thoroughfare, park,
Campus Journalism Act. Under the law, in order that the plaza square, and/or any open space of public
right to free speech, assembly and petition can be ownership where the people are allowed access.
recognized, the exercise of this right must be limited.
What are the 3 conditions enumerated by the SC in Aside from assemblies in private places, what other
Malabanan in order that the students may freely exercise assemblies do not need a permit?
this right in school? 1. Those held in Freedom Parks, to be constituted
1. The exercise of the right must not involve under a law or an ordinance. Under BP 880, each
substantial violence; municipality must establish the respective
2. It must materially disrupt classwork as well as freedom park within 6 months from the
the works of the non-teaching staff; and effectivity of the law.
3. It must not interfere with the rights of others. - When the case in Bayan vs. Ermita was decided,
are all cities and municipalities in the Philippines
Earlier, we have learned that BP 880 is a content-neutral have their respective Freedom Parks?
regulation. In Bayan vs. Ermita , the petitioner - No. In Manila, the Freedom Park established was
contends that BP 880 is content-based because of the use converted into a golf course (Intramuros).
of the word “lawful” in the definition of public assembly. Essentially, there was only one Freedom Park at
The petitioner also said that the use of the word that time, which was in Cebu City. This impelled
“influencing”, “protesting”, means that BP 880 is only the SC to issue a warning to all LGUs, saying that
against assemblies against the government, which means if the LGU has not yet established a Freedom Park
that it is content-based. Did the SC agree? within 30 days(?) from the effectivity of the law,
- No. The constitution only protects peaceful and all public parks shall be deemed as Freedom
lawful assembly. If it is not anymore peaceful, Parks for public assemblies.
then it no longer enjoys constitutional protection.
- As to influencing and protesting, the SC said that
any subject matter and any group can apply. The
mere fact that the subject matter is anti-
Page 33 of 67
Public assemblies, aside from freedom park, that do that we are only using a different name, but same
not require permits? degree and same activity, whatever is applicable to
1. private places, because they cannot be considered MT, we will use it with CPR?
as public assemblies, but nonetheless they are No. BAYAN v ERMITA, SC held that the President
exempted from permit cannot give a different name even if the standard is
2. assemblies in freedom park the same because what mandates MT as a term is BP
3. assemblies in government owned and controlled 880, and BP 880, being law, may not be amended by
universities or colleges the President. The President has no authority to
legislate: if the law says MT, that is the term that
Where should the applicant obtain the permit? should be used by the President. The President
Office of the mayor cannot use any other name even if it means the same
thing.
Is there a time or period for the filing?
5 WORKING days prior the intended date of “the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy
assembly. has no place in our legal firmament and must be
struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It
What is the legal obligation of the Office of the merely confuses our people and is used by some
Mayor regarding the filing of application? police agents to justify abuses.”
It must decide on the application within 2 WORKING
days. SECTION 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
When should the Office of the Mayor (OM) religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
communicate its decision? Within 24 hours from the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
time it was rendered. Maximum, therefor, is 3 and worship, without discrimination or preference,
WORKING days since 2 WORKING days to decide, 24 shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
hours to communicate. required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Suppose the OM failed to act on it within the period What are the two constitutional guarantees under
to decide? The application is deemed granted. Section 5?
Religious freedom and the non-establishment of
What if the OM refused to receive the application, religion or the free exercise clause (FEC) and the
what is the remedy of the applicant? Is there non-establishment clause (NEC).
anything under the law that addresses the issue?
Under the law, should the OM refuse the application, ESTRADA v ESCRITOR, SC (2003): these two
the applicant can post it anywhere in the OM, and clauses are always in conflict. FEC cannot co-exist
that would be considered as the time of filing. From with NEC. But in (2006) resolution, SC: Two clauses
there, the 2-day period would start to run. can co-exist. Why did the SC say that they are
equally exclusive?
What is the degree of restraint that must be applied Under the old AC, priests and other ministers cannot
by law enforcement officers or military officers in run for public office Religious freedom was used,
the public assemblies? through RFEC to disqualify a priest. But if we apply
Maximum tolerance. NEC, that is valid. That is why Supreme Court said
that they cannot co-exist, it’s either one or the other.
Supposing getting tired of the term “maximum NEC is a guarantee on the part of government of
tolerance,” the President wants to change it to a non-interference—that it will not perform anything
different name. Same degree of restraint, different that will interfere religion. Meaning, under NEC, it is
name. Supposing the President wants to change it to a commitment that the government will not do
“calibrated preemptive response” just to break the anything that will influence religion. The stance of
wrong notion that police officers do not have any the government is neutrality. There is inaction.
participation in public assemblies. Can the President
do that? Supposing that the President makes it clear
Page 34 of 67
Under the FEC, the commitment of the government mean that all use of public funds is prohibited by the
is that it will perform all acts possible to ensure that Constitution?
the people can enjoy their religion. NO. Aglipay v Ruiz, SC: the Government should not
THAT IS WHY IN THE 2003 DECISION, they cannot be embarassed in its activities simply because of
coexist. Because one involves inaction (NEC) and the incidental results, more or less religious in
other involves positive action. character, if the purpose had in view is one which
could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate
BUT IN 2006, the SC reconciled NEC and FEC by legislation. The main purpose should not be
saying that the two clauses do not intend to achieve frustrated by its subordinate to mere incidental
different objectives. They have the same main results not contemplated.
objective which is not to influence religion.
FEC only prohibits government from inhibiting What is the rule, according to SC, in order to use
religious beliefs and practices with penalties. On the public funds or property, in activities that have some
other hand, NEC only prohibits government from religious color? The Lemon Test, which was upheld
inhibiting religion with rewards. The SC said the two in the case of Lemon v Kurtzman, a case cited in
clauses were intended to deny the government both Estrada v Escritor.
the power carrot and stick in influencing religion.
What are the requirements?
What is the definition of religion? First, the statute must have a secular legislative
US v Seeger, as cited in Estrada v Escritor, there purpose; second, its primary or principal effect must
are 4 requisites (abandoning the theistic concept of be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
religion and accommodates non-theistic beliefs) finally, the statute must not foster an excessive
1. there must be belief in God or some parallel belief entanglement with religion
that occupies a central place in the believers life.
-- which means that instead of God, it can be a In Aglipay v Ruiz, what was the secular legislative
way of life; for as long the centrality of purpose for the release of the commemorative
philosophy is that way of life, that may constitute stamp? For tourism purposes— it is to promote
a religion as long all the other requisites are tourism and not to promote the activity.
present
2. the religion must involve a moral code “It is significant to note that the stamps as actually
transcending individual belief, i.e., it cannot be designed and printed, instead of showing a Catholic
purely subjective. Church chalice as originally planned, contains a map
3. a demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but of the Philippines and the location of the City of
the court must not inquire into the truth or Manila, and an inscription as follows: "Seat XXXIII
reasonableness of the belief. International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7,1937."
4. there must be some associational ties, although What is emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress
there is also a view that religious beliefs held by a itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as the
single person rather than being part of the teachings seat of that congress.”
of any kind of group or sect are entitled to the
protection of the Free Exercise Clause. In Garces v Estenzo what was the secular legislative
purpose of the purchase of the wooden image of San
Supposing that a person is being charged with Vicente Ferrer?
Bigamy, can she convert to Islam to escape liability? The wooden image was purchased in connection
No. 3 requisite is not present i.e. sincerity of belief.
rd with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the
patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the
In order to strengthen the constitutional guarantee purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with
of non-establishment of religion, the Constitution religious matters or the religious beliefs of the
prohibits the use of public funds or property for barrio residents. The barrio fiesta is a socio-religious
religious purposes under Sec. 29 of Art. 6, also in affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in
order to strengthen the wall of separation. Does that rural communities.

Page 35 of 67
THE SECULAR PURPOSE IS THAT: The fiesta Justice Frankfurter: The constitutional provision
relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of on religious freedom terminated disabilities, it
the masses. Or in short, it is intended to entertain did not create new privileges. It gave religious
the people. liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence is
freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not
In both cases (Aglipay v Ruiz, Garcez v Estenzo), freedom from conformity to law because of
the SC upheld the constitutionality of the acts. religious dogma.

NEC only guarantees that the government will not But as to the X rating given by the MTRCB, did the SC
establish a religion, nor discriminate one or all sustain it? As to interference of the State on these
religion. So under the NEC, the stance of the types of controversies, how did the SC rule? Can the
government will be absolute neutrality. What are SC rule on how the INC attacked another religion?
the two aspects of religious freedom according to
the SC in the case of Iglesia ni Cristo v Court of NO, the SC cannot rule on such. There is a difference
Appeals? between attacking and offending. Offending
The two aspects are freedom to believe and freedom religious feeling is a criminal act under the RPC. But
to act on one’s beliefs. attacking does not necessarily mean offending.
According to the case, “In a State where there ought
In the case of INC v CA, the MTRCB gave the shows to be no difference between the appearance and the
of INC X rating, because according to MTRCB, it is reality of freedom of religion, the remedy against
attacking another religion particularly the Roman bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of
Catholic religion. On the other hand, the petitioner freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best
claims that in coming up with its shows, it is served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling
exercising its religious freedom, and so MTRCB has ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the
no authority to review and classify its shows. As to marketplace of ideas demands that speech should
that argument of the petitioner, did the SC agree? be met by more speech for it is the spark of
No. The mere invocation of the right does not render opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that
the government totally powerless in restricting or can fan the embers of truth.”
regulating the activity. Even religious activities may
be subjected to governmental regulations. For when As to the issue of whether the doctrines of INC, in
religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State attacking another religion, are actionable, the SC
should not stand still. said that they cannot interfere because it is an inter-
religion controversy involving their doctrines. As to
“But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in the issue of the show can be regulated, the SC said
acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom that it is still within the power of the government.
to do so becomes subject to the authority of the Can we say that all acts done by religious ministers
State. As great as this liberty may be, religious are religious?
freedom, like all the other rights guaranteed in the As held in the case of Diocese Bacolod v COMELEC,
Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a proper “Clearly, not all acts done by those who are priests,
regard for the rights of others. It is error to think bishops, ustadz, imams, or any other religious make
that the mere invocation of religious freedom will such act immune from any secular regulation.324
stalemate the State and render it impotent in The religious also have a secular existence. They
protecting the general welfare. The inherent police exist within a society that is regulated by law.”
power can be exercised to prevent religious
practices inimical to society. And this is true even if But SC recognized the reality that every act can be
such practices are pursued out of sincere religious motivated by moral, ethical, or spiritual
conviction and not merely for the purpose of considerations. It is not always easy to determine if
evading the reasonable requirements or the act is ecclesiastical or secular. SC, however, in
prohibitions of the law.” the case of Austria v NLRC, gave 4 proceedings
which are beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, and
therefor are “ecclesiastical affairs.” What are these?
Page 36 of 67
"proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of Does that mean that the religious activities are not
religious ministers, administration of sacraments subject to any tax? The religious ministers like
and other activities with attached religious priests, bishops, and religious, are professionals.
significance." Like lawyers, doctors, and accountants, they also
receive compensation in the discharge of their
So under the exercise of religious freedom, there are profession. Can there be tax for the compensation
things that each individual can profess their they receive in administering activities? (e.g. during
religious faith without interference from the a mass, a priest be paid 5k per mass)
government. Does religious freedom also include the
act of proselytizing? Yes. A tax on the compensation of the religious
-- this is the activity involved in American Bible ministers is not a tax on the religious activity. The
Society v City of Manila, proselytizing is the privilege of accepting compensation is not part of
distribution of religious materials as form of their religious activity, it is ONLY incidental, but it is
religious ceremony. The SC, in the case, included this not part of the ceremony.
activity.
Supposing the priest receives an offering, and the
In ABS v Manila, there are 2 ordinances involved in offering is in money. Is it taxable? Can we say that
this case: Ordinance 2529 and Ordinance 3000. offering is part of the religious ceremony (so as to
Ordinance 2529 only imposes tax on activities of exempt it from taxation)?
selling and other transactions in the City of Manila. -- No, it is not taxable. An offering is not subject to
Ordinance 3000 requires the obtention of a permit. taxation for an offering is part of the religious
Are the activities of the petitioner in distributing the activity, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
materials for a fee covered by 2529?
-- No. ORDINANCE 3000: Before they can engage in the act
of distributing materials, they have to obtain a
The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the permit from the office of the city mayor. Is it
power to control or suppress its enjoyment… applicable to the activities of the petitioner in the
Those who can tax the exercise of this religious case of ABS v Manila?
practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive -- No, similar to Ordinance 2529.
it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.
Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this We do not find that it imposes any charge upon the
form of missionary evangelism can close all its doors enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor
to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading tax the exercise of religious practices.
religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable
manner would thus be denied the needy… Under the Constitution, the last sentence of Sec. 5 of
Art. 3 prohibits religious test for the exercise of civil
The power to impose a license tax on the or political rights (e.g. before one can exercise right
exercise of these freedom is indeed as potent as to vote, he must pass religious test). Can the
the power of censorship which this Court has government impose governmental test (secular test)
repeatedly struck down… It is not a nominal fee for the exercise of religious rights? NO.
imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the
expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in ESTRADA v ESCRITOR: Issue is whether the
no way apportioned. It is flat license tax levied and Administrative Code can be applied for the
collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities extramarital affair of the respondent. In determining
whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the the morality of the arrangement, the Court applied
constitutional liberties of press and religion and secular standard.
inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is
almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice Because the Courts are courts of law and the only
and evil of this flat license tax." standard they can apply is law and not religious
standard. Which means that applying secular
standard, the arrangement of the respondent and
Page 37 of 67
her partner is immoral, because it is not allowed for in the case of Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of
a married person to cohabit with another person. Cebu,
Therefore, it is secularly immoral. The next question
is whether such activity be exempted from the The religious belief sought to be professed by the
coverage of a secular law. In determining whether student is not singing the national anthem, which is
an arrangement can be regulated by a mandatory not a traditional religious practice. But the SC
law, whether criminal, civil or administrative, the considered it as covered by the Constitutional
law must apply the compelling State interest test. All guarantee since however "bizarre" may be, so long
the questions provided for in the test must be in the as it is part of religious activity, the State cannot
affirmative—if one of the questions is no, then the interfere with it.
governmental regulation failed the test. Therefore,
the government regulation cannot be applied to the IMBONG v OCHOA: The doctors can refer the
religious activity. patients to another doctor. While they cannot be
compelled to give medical opinion because of their
The religious activity is the extramarital religious belief, they are mandated at the very least
cohabitation; the governmental regulation sought to to refer to another doctor. IS that a reasonable
be applied to that is the RPC, prohibiting compromise?
concubinage and adultery, the AC, requiring -- No. Because religious freedom cannot be impaired
administrative officers to live a moral life; so can we directly or indirectly.
say that the laws unduly burden the exercise of
religious freedom of the respondent? Yes. Though it has been said that the act of referral is an
Because the respondent would have to choose opt-out clause, it is, however, a false compromise
whether to follow the law or to follow her religious because it makes pro-life health providers complicit
belief, which means that her religious belief was in the performance of an act that they find morally
compromised by a law. So either she follows the repugnant or offensive. They cannot, in conscience,
church or she follows the government, so definitely, do indirectly what they cannot do directly. One may
there is a burden. not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he
abets the offensive act by indirect participation.
2006 Resolution, SC: in order to be a compelling
State interest, it must not be a generalized principle. ESTRADA v ESCRITOR, SC applied CSI Test. While in
Because the CSI must be specific. Assuming that the other cases (e.g. ABS v Manila) SC applied other tests
preservation of sanctity of marriage and the (Clear and Present Danger Test), how did the SC
preservation of integrity of service are CSI, did the explain the difference between the two?
regulations comply with the CSI test? As long as it is -- If the subject is religious freedom together with
the least intrusive means. other rights under Sec. 4 of Art. 3 (INC v CA—
religious freedom thru television; ABS v Manila—
What does “least intrusive means” require? It religious freedom thru distribution of periodicals and
requires that the CSI cannot be achieved through other religious materials, Ebralinag v Division
any other means. The only way that a government Superintendent—religious freedom thru salute), the
can achieve its legitimate interest is by interfering applicable test is clear and present danger test. But
with the religious activity. Would the punishment of when religious freedom is exercised exclusively, not
the arrangement in Estrada v Escritor be the only with the cognate rights under Sec. 4 of Art. 3, CSIT is
way of preserving the integrity in the public service applicable.
or the sanctity of marriage? NO. There are other
means that can be taken. Therefore, it cannot
restrict the religious freedom. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing
the same within the limits prescribed by law
Does the constitutional guarantee of religious shall not be impaired except upon lawful order
freedom only cover traditional religious practices? of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
No, it also covers bizarre religious practice. As held impaired except in the interest of national

Page 38 of 67
security, public safety, or public health, as may LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
be provided by law.

“As may be provided by law” applies to the three? Section 6

YES. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
Sec. 6 of Art. 3 is divided into two parts by upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
separating liberty of abode with right to travel in travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health, as may be
order to prevent hamleting during the 1973
provided by law.
Constitution. What is this practice called
“hamleting?” The conjunctive word OR is used before “as may be
provided by law”, which means that the right to travel
can be impaired in the alternative: national security,
A particular place was being cut off from the rest of public safety or public health? Which means that the
the territory in order to deprive them of food, water, phrase “as may be provided by law” pertains to the
or anything that will sustain them for that matter. three?
The purpose of this is to flush out insurgents. They - Yes.
tried this in Marawi. During the Marawi siege, it was
sought to be exercised, but they failed since it was Section 6 of Article 3 under the 1987 Constitution was
too big. divided into two parts by separating the liberty of abode
and the right to travel in order to prevent the practice of
“hamleting” during the 1973 Constitution. What’s this
IF we will still adopt the original provision of the practice of “hamleting”?
- A law enforcement activity where a particular
1973 Constitution, it will give the government the place is being cut off from the rest of the territory
power to isolate one community as long as it is in in order to deprive them of food, water, anything
the interest of national security, public safety, or to sustain them. This is used to flush out all the
public health. It was addressed by the separation of insurgents.
the two. - During the Marawi siege, it was sought to be
exercised but they failed because it’s too big.
They cannot do it in Marawi.
- This is the reason why the liberty of abode was
separated from the right to travel to prevent the
practice of “hamleting”. If we will still adopt the
original provision of the 1973 Constitution, it will
give the government the power to isolate one
community as long as it is in the interest of
national security, public safety or public health.

The right to liberty of abode, which only involves the

right to choose one’s residence or change it anytime as he
pleases, is subject to a valid impairment, which is a lawful
order of the court.

Is this the ONLY valid impairment?

- No. A law may also impair the liberty of abode.
Because of the phrase “within the limits
prescribed by law”. It authorizes the government
to impair the liberty of abode even without a
lawful order.

Supposing A bought a lot, and the objective of A in buying

that lot is to establish his dream house. He paid the
purchase price in installment, which is 20 years to pay.

Page 39 of 67
On the 20th year, when he was about to pay the last the right to travel, could the SC have a different
installment, the City government where the lot was conclusion?
located issued an ordinance classifying the area where he
brought the property as highly-industrialized zone not fit Let’s assume for academic discussion that the right to
for residential purposes. Can A insist in building his travel includes the right to return to one’s country.
house on that area? Can he say that if the City wants to Would the Marcos vs. Manglapus case be decided the
prevent him, the City has to go to court and get an same?
injunctive order? - No. If the right to return would be included in the
- No. Bill of Rights, there would be greater protection
granted to such right.
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS - The order of the President in prohibiting the
What are two activities covered by the right to travel? return to the Philippines would NOT have been
1. Right to travel within the country; and valid because a prohibition on the right to travel
2. Right to travel outside the country. may only be limited only when national security,
public safety or public health demands, as may be
How about the right to return to the Philippines coming provided by law.
from a foreign country? What then is the relevance of the phrase “as may be
- No. The right to return to the country is not provided by law”?
included in the right to travel. But it is included in - The power discharged by the President in
the rights provided in the Universal Declaration prohibiting the return was not a legislative act,
of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International hence it would not have been a valid prohibition.
Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Administrative agencies (including the President) can
Are these conventions generally accepted principles of only impair the right to travel if there is a law or a
international law? legislative act authorizing them to regulate this
- Yes. constitutional liberty, and the objective is to further
national security, public safety or public health. This is
Are they considered part of our laws? the reason why in the case of __________ vs. De Lima, the SC
- Yes. declared unconstitutional Department Circular No. 41,
which consolidates all rules in the issuance of Hold
Which means that whether they are included in the right Departure Orders, WLO, ADO, etc. The SC said that the
to travel, or in international conventions, the right to Secretary of Justice has no legislative authority to restrict
return to one’s country is a constitutionally protected the right to travel.
right?
- No. The right to return to one’s country is not
included in the Bill of Rights. It enjoys protection
from international laws.
- The right to travel under Section 6, Article 3 can
only be impaired in the interest of:
i. National security;
ii. Public safety; or
iii. Public health.
- The right to return to one’s country, as provided
in the international laws, can be regulated or
validly restricted only when the regulation is not
exercised arbitrarily.

The SC held the condition at that time is not yet stable

because there are still threats from Marcos loyalists. The
SC said that the prohibition on the petitioner and his
family to return to the Philippines is definitely not
arbitrary.

Why did the SC have to make a distinction between the

right to travel and the right to return to one’s country?
Had the right to return to one’s country been covered by
Page 40 of 67
RIGHT TO INFORMATION law prohibiting the disclosure. When is an information
one of public interest or public concern?
Section 7 - Both terms embrace a wide spectrum of subject
The right of the people to information on matters of matters which the public may want to know
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official either because it affects their lives directly or
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to because it arouses the interest of an ordinary
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to citizen. The excitement on such interest must
government research data used as basis for policy have some legitimate public purpose, not only for
development shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such mere curiosity.
limitations as may be provided by law.
Is the Civil Service eligibility of Health Officers one of
LEGASPI VS. CSC public interest or public concern?
- Yes. Public office being a public trust, it is the
Does the Constitution guarantee the right to information,
or the Constitution only recognizes it? Can we say that legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that
government positions requiring civil service
recognition is different from guarantee? Recognition is
eligibility are occupied only by persons who are
only an affirmation of its existence but it is not a
eligible.
commitment to protect it.
- For every right of the people recognized as
fundamental, there lies a corresponding duty on How about the manual for execution for those who suffer
death penalty?
those who govern to respect it and protect that
- Yes. In the case of Echagaray vs. Secretary of
right, which means that recognition carries with
it an obligation to respect and to protect that Justice, it is a matter of public concern,
right. particularly those who were made to suffer the
penalty of death, it will directly affect their lives.
The main issue here is the characteristics of Section 28 of
Article 2 and Section 7 of Article 3, because in both cases, How about the component units of political subdivisions,
the respondent contends that these are judicially like the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity?
enforceable rights because of the phrase “as may be - Yes. It affects the sovereignty and the territorial
provided by law”. How did the SC rule? integrity of the State, which directly affects the
- These provisions are self-executing because they lives of the public at large.
supply the rules by which the right to information
may be enjoyed by imposing on the part of the How about the concessions made by the government and
government the obligation to allow access to the accused in plea-bargaining agreement of criminal
information. These constitutional provisions cases.
became operative upon the ratification of the - No. In the case of Chavez vs. PCGG, the SC held
Constitution. that although information may also pertain to
- The phrase “as may be provided by law” does not propositions, such propositions must pertain to
refer to the policy of governmental disclosure, it definite propositions of the government, not
does not refer to the right to information, but necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency
rather on the reasonable restriction which may recommendations or communications during the
be prescribed by the Legislature. stage when common assertions are still in the
What are the reasonable objectives for a valid regulation process of being formulated or are in the
of the custodians? “exploratory” stage.
1. Its authority to regulate access is to be exercised
solely to the end that damage to, or loss of, public VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE, JR.
records may be avoided; Does the right to information on matters of public
2. That undue interference with the duties of said concern extend to GOCC’s transactions?
agencies may be prevented; and - Yes. Regardless of whether or not they are
3. That the exercise of the same constitutional right exercising proprietary or governmental actions?
by other persons shall be assured. - Yes.

The SC said that in order that the right to information In this case, the funds of the GOCC involved, which is
may be invoked, the transaction or the information must GSIS, come from the contributions of government
be one of public concern or public interest and there is no employees. In that regard, the outlay of these funds is one
of public interest or public concern.
Page 41 of 67
 expose its defects. (Province of North
In this case petitioners were demanding the list of names Cotabato vs. GRP Peace Panel )
of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the
UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean We have learned that some of the constitutional
loans during the intercession of marginal notes of guarantees under the Bill of Rights also extend to non-
Former First Lady Marcos. Is this a valid demand under Filipino citizens. How about Section 7?
the right to information? - No.
- No. While mandamus may lie to ask for
information, the right to information does not Basis in saying that?
include the right to demand copies of the - The Constitution mandates that this right “shall
documents or to demand summaries thereof. be afforded the citizen”.
- The right to information under Section 7 only
involves the right to be given access, not the The right to information can only be invoked if the
additional duty to make lists, summaries, or information is one of public concern, and if there is no
abstracts. law prohibiting its disclosure. The SC explained in
Legaspi vs. CSC that the custodians cannot restrict the
The petitioners here are media practitioners, and the SC access to information. They can only regulate, and
said the right to information is a necessary premise to regulation does not include the right to deny outright the
the right to press. Why? What is the consequence if the disclosure of information.
people, particularly of the press, are denied the inner
workings of the government? But in the case of Chavez vs. PCGG, the SC mentioned
- The power to control the flow of information some information that by their very nature are not
results to the power to control public opinion. subject to disclosure even if there is no law prohibiting
The government cannot, in the exercise of its their disclosure. The SC identified four types of
regulatory power, withhold information without information:
violating the cognate rights under Section 4. 1. National security matters and other intelligence
information (common law recognizes the
CHAVEZ VS. PCGG proprietary(?) character of this information);
The term “transaction” appears under Section 7 and 2. Trade secrets and banking transactions (even
similarly under Section 28 of Article 2. Does it refer to without the Intellectual Property Code and the
consummated transactions? Bank Secrecy Law, these transactions are not for
- The SC in this case, citing the deliberations on the public consumption because they are private in
1987 Constitution, held that the word nature);
“transaction” was used in its general sense, and 3. Criminal matters
may refer not only to those acts which have - Does that mean that records of criminal cases are
already been consummated but also to those that not subject to public disclosure?
are still leading to the consummation of the - The confidential nature of criminal cases is
transaction. limited only for a particular period. Information
- According to the SC, there is no need to wait for regarding apprehension, detention and
the consummation of the transaction before the prosecution shall be privileged and confidential
citizen can exercise his right to information. only until actual arrest, actual detention, or actual
prosecution, so as not to interfere with legitimate
Why did the SC say that there is no need to wait for the law enforcement activities.
consummation? 4. Confidential information, which includes:
- Requiring a consummated contract will keep the i. Executive sessions of both Houses of
public in the dark until the contract, which may Congress;
grossly advantageous to the government or even ii. Internal deliberations of Members of the
illegal, becomes fait accompli. This negates the Court;
State policy of full transparency on matters of iii. Closed-door cabinet meetings of the
public concern, a situation which the framers of President;
the Constitution could not have intended. iv. Inter-governmental communications
Otherwise, the people can never exercise the prior to the consummation of a treaty;
right if no contract is consummated, and if one is and
consummated, it may be too late for the public to

Page 42 of 67
 v. Confidential information obtained by When applied to the Executive department, who
public officers in the performance of their is entitled to this inter-departmental courtesy
duties. and comity?
- The President. By extension, it may also be
How about intra-agency communications and extended to the Executive Secretary. As to the
discussions, is this subject to public disclosure? other officers in the Executive department, the
- No. Inter-agency communications or privilege applies not to the person but to the
recommendations where general concessions are information.
still being deliberated, or are still on the How about in the Supreme Court? Can we say
“exploratory” stage are not covered by the right that only the Chief Justice is entitled to this
to public disclosure. principle?
- No. The other Justices are also entitled because
IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS they hold equal positions, only that the Chief
What are the rules on the confidentiality of documents Justice is given some authority which the other
and deliberations on the Supreme Court? Associate Justices cannot exercise. Nonetheless,
1. The actions taken by the Court on each case the Supreme Court is a collegiate institution,
included in the agenda of the Court’s session are therefore, all the Associate Justices as well as the
confidential; Chief Justice are entitled to this principle.
How about to Congress? Are all Members of the
2. The result of the raffle of cases are confidential; House of Representatives and the Senate are
- Does that mean that results of raffle of cases entitled to this principle?
cannot be disclosed to any person? - Yes. Congress is also collegiate.
NO. They may be available to the parties and their
counsels, UNLESS the cases involve bar matters, 5. Information obtained by judicial officers in the
administrative cases and criminal cases involving conduct of their official functions, under the New
the penalty of life imprisonment, which are Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
treated with strict confidentiality and where the Judiciary.
raffle results are NOT disclosed even to the
parties themselves. 6. Records of cases which are pending decision,
under the principle of sub judice rule, as it will
3. The deliberations of the Members in court interfere with the administration of justice.
sessions on cases and matters before it; also Until when is the confidentiality of this kind of
known as deliberative process privilege. It also communication?
extends to officers of the Judiciary, not just to - Only after the official release of the resolution
Justices. Court transactions or communications embodying the decision may the information be
are confidential, on two conditions: made available to the public. A resolution is
i. It must be pre-decisional (when they were considered officially released once the envelope
made in the attempt to reach a final containing its final copy, addressed to the parties,
conclusion); and has been transmitted to the process server for
ii. It must be deliberative (part of the give- personal service or to the mailing section of the
and-take of the consultative process). Judicial Records Office.
What is the ultimate test in determining whether
a communication is deliberative under the 7. The confidentiality of the procedures may NOT be
deliberative process privilege? waived by a member of the Supreme Court.
- If the disclosure of the information would In this case, Former CJ Justice Sereno wanted to
discourage candid discussion among the voluntarily attend the impeachment trial, saying
decision-makers. there was no need to issue a subpoena. Is that
allowed?
4. The principle of comity and inter-departmental - No. The privilege of confidentiality belongs to
courtesy. the Supreme Court as an institution, therefore,
Inter-departmental courtesy demands that the none of the Associate Justices, even the Chief
highest levels of each department be exempt Justice himself or herself may waive the
from compulsory processes of the other confidentiality of these transactions or
departments on matters related to the functions documents.
and duties of their office.

Page 43 of 67
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION public sector is to lobby or petition the Congress
to legislate.
Section 8
The right of the people, including those employed in the Can we say that terms and conditions of public sector
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, employment which are not provided for by law may not
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be be the subject of collective bargaining negotiations?
abridged. - Yes.

The Constitution guarantees the right of those employed And as for the subject matter of these negotiations, can
in the public and private sectors to for unions, the public sector employees now engaged in a strike?
associations, or societies. Section 8 is not limited to the - No.
formation of unions, associations, or societies, but also
includes activities which are inherent in the formation of What is the remedy if there is no concession during
the unions. Can we say the extent of the Constitutional collective bargaining negotiations between the
liberty is the same whether the person is employed in the employees and the government? What is the internal
public or the private sector? remedy set in EO 180?
- No. Although it would seem that Section 8 - The Public Labor Management Council can be
provides that the right to form unions is equally convened in order to break the impasse.
given to those employed in the public and private
sectors, it is limited with respect to the right to The right to association is a fundamental right. Does this
strike. Those employed in the private sector have right include the right not to associate?
the liberty to strike, as is also provided in Section - Yes. However, under the Labor Code, there may
3 of Article 13. On the other hand, those be a closed shop agreement in the employment
employed in the public sector are prohibited from contract which prohibits the employee to
staging strikes. dissociate from the labor union, otherwise he/she
will be terminated from work.
Is there anything under Section 8 of Article 3 that allows
the government to restrict the coverage of the right to The SC sustained the constitutionality of union security
form unions? clauses as provided in the Industrial Peace Act because
- No. “For purposes not contrary to law,” which these are based on public policy. While the constitutional
means, as the SC held in the case of People vs. guarantee to association is fundamental, can it be the
subject of contractual stipulation?
Ferrer, that the people may not form
- Yes. Union security clauses are stipulations in a
associations for the purpose of subversion,
contract. A collective bargaining agreement is a
because subversion is an unlawful activity and it
contract between the employer and the labor
is contrary to law.
union and employees as regards employment
terms and conditions. Hence, it can be the subject
In order that an individual be restricted in his right to
of stipulation. (Caveat: it is a contract which is
association, there must be a law. Is there a law
impressed with public interest, and the law is
prohibiting the public sector to engage in a strike?
deemed written in the employment contract.)
- Yes. EO 180 in relation to CSC No. 6, Series of
1986. It was issued at the time when the
IN RE: IBP MEMBERSHIP DUES DELINQUENCY OF
President still has legislative power, hence they
are laws. ATTY. EDILLON

What is the wisdom behind the restriction on the right of Petitioner contends that he is being compelled to become
the public employees to engage in a strike? a member of an association to which he does not want to
- It will undermine and impede public service. belong. Did the SC agree?
- Strikes are held in order to pressure the - No. The SC ruled that upon passing the Bar
employer to concede to the demands to improve examination, a person becomes a member of the
working conditions. Since the terms and Integrated Bar.
conditions of employment of the employees in - Members of the Bar cannot dissociate from any
the public sector are already provided by law, Chapter of the Integrated Bar because if a lawyer
there is no more need to strike to insist their is not a member of the Integrated Bar, he cannot
demands. The remedy of the employees in the practice law. In that sense, there is a compulsion.
It is a valid and reasonable compulsion because

Page 44 of 67
the Constitution authorizes the SC to regulate the NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
practice of law and the integration of the Bar.
Section 10
No law shall impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
imposed.

Why does the Constitution guarantee that the

government shall not interfere with contractual
obligations?
- To preserve the integrity of contracts. Without
this, people cannot trust contracts as a
commercial medium because there is no
guarantee that the government will respect the
agreement of the parties.

Where is there impairment?

- There is impairment when there is a
a. change in the terms of a legal contract
between parties, either in the time or mode of
performance;
b. imposes new conditions;
c. dispenses with those expressed; or
d. authorizes for its satisfaction something
different from that provided in its terms.

Is the extent of the change relevant in determining

whether there is an impairment of contracts?
- The degree of diminution is immaterial. As long
as the original rights of either party are changed
to their prejudice, there is already impairment of
the obligation of contracts.
- Only unreasonable impairment of the obligation
of contracts are prohibited by the Constitution.

RUTTER VS. ESTEBAN

The SC put in its judicial lens the constitutionality of
Moratorium Laws in general. Are Moratorium Laws in
general valid?
- There are two conditions in order that
Moratorium Laws may be valid:
1. It must be fixed or definite;
2. It must be reasonable.
What are Moratorium Laws?
- Laws which allow the postponement of the
fulfillment of obligations.

In this case, up to how long is the suspension?

- At least 12 years. The suspension of 8 years shall
commence in 1945.

Did the SC consider this reasonable?

- No. 12 years is too long.

Page 45 of 67
Aside from the long period of postponement, what is the
other element of the Moratorium Law that makes it RIGHT TO BAIL
unreasonable?
- It suspends the other rights of creditors,
particularly the right to collect interest. Section 13
All persons, except those charged with offenses
ORTIGAS VS. FEATI BANK punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
In the exercise of the attributes of sovereignty, the State is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
can interfere with contractual obligations. What is the sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
reason given by the SC why the government can interfere provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
with existing contractual obligations? even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
- The laws are deemed written in contractual suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
obligations.
What is bail?
- Bail is the security given for the release of a
The governmental act involved here is a Zoning
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or
Ordinance. This is an exercise of police power of the LGU.
a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before
In the exercise of contractual obligations, the parties
any court as required under the conditions herein
cannot interfere or obstruct the performance of the
specified. (R114, S1)
inherent power of the State, whether national or local.
Parties in a contract cannot agree that the taxes that may
What is the main object of bail?
be applied to their contracts shall be fixed at the rate
- The object of bail is to relieve the accused of
existing at the time, because at some future time, the
imprisonment, and of the government the burden
State may increase it. Similarly, in the power of eminent
of keeping him. At the same time, to place the
domain, the parties cannot insist that the object of the
accused at all times in the custody of the proper
contract shall be delivered by the seller to the buyer if
officer, as if he is under the authority of the court.
the government exercises the power of eminent domain.
- The only reason why the accused is allowed to be
detained even before he is convicted beyond
GANZON VS. INSERTO reasonable doubt is to guarantee that he will
No “law” shall be passed. Does this only include appear during the trial. If that is the only reason
legislative acts? why he is imprisoned, then it can be substituted
- No. In this case, the SC impliedly extended the through proper bail. (Basco vs. Rapatalo)
application of this guarantee to judicial decisions.
(Silverio vs. CA)
It is not only limited to legislative department but
to any governmental acts. Bail is a security for the release of a person in custody of
the law. An accused who is out on bail is given
LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ provisional liberty. May an accused who is not yet
The petitioner contends that BP 22 also impairs the detained post bail?
obligation of contracts because when the drawer issues a - YES. At the outset, an accused must be under the
check, the only intent is to pay the face value of the check. jurisdiction of the court before he may post bail.
But the law increases the remedy by filing a criminal He may be arrested, or he may submit itself to the
action against the drawer. Did the SC agree that BP22 jurisdiction of the court (by voluntary surrender).
impairs the obligation of contracts? Hence, the accused need not wait for his warrant
- No. Checks are commercial documents which are of arrest and detention to be able to post bail. He
subject to regulation by the State in the interest may voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the
of public policy. court and then post bail.

Bail is granted to a person who is accused in a criminal

case. Can bail be imposed to a person who is NOT an
accused? Can it be imposed to a person who is not even a
party to a controversy?
- Yes. Bail may be imposed to a material witness
for the prosecution, if the prosecution may show
that such witness will not appear during the trial
when called.

Page 46 of 67
 - In this regard, bail is not a right. Bail is a Which means that to deny a person of his right to bail,
guarantee. This is provided for in Section 14 of two conditions must be present:
Rule 119, which provides that, “When the court 1. That he is accused of an offense punishable by
is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
witness will not testify when required, it may, and
upon motion of either party, order the witness to 2. The evidence of guilt is strong.
post bail, the court shall commit him to prison
until he complies or is legally discharged after his When is bail a matter of discretion?
testimony has been taken.” 1. AFTER conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
What are the four forms of bail? (R114, S1) imprisonment. (R114, S5)
1. Corporate surety 2. BEFORE conviction by the RTC of an offense
2. Property bond PUNISHABLE by death, reclusion perpetua or life
3. Cash deposit imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is NOT
4. Recognizance strong.
- The discretion of the court is limited only to the
What are the mandatory provisions in all kinds of bail? determination of weight of evidence of guilt. If
1. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, the court, upon the exercise of its discretion,
unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all determines that the evidence of guilt is WEAK,
stages of the case until promulgation of the discretion ceases. The court has no choice but to
judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective GRANT the application for bail.
of whether the case was originally filed in or - On the other hand, if the court, upon the
appealed to it; exercise of its discretion, determines that the
2. The accused shall appear before the proper court evidence of guilt is STRONG, discretion ceases.
whenever required by the court or these Rules; The court has no choice but to DENY the
3. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial application for bail.
without justification and despite due notice shall 3. In the case of Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan :
be deemed a waiver of his right to be present - The accused is charged with an offense
thereat; and PUNISHABLE by reclusion perpetua, and the
4. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the evidence of guilt is STRONG, for humanitarian
court for execution of the final judgment. (R114, consideration. Regardless of the punishment of
S2) the offense charged and regardless of the stage of
the prosecution, the accused may be allowed to
What are the two kinds of bail? post bail if his continued detention will post
1. Bail as a matter of right serious risk to his health.
2. Bail as a matter of discretion
What are the four obligations of the court whenever an
When is bail a matter of right? application for bail is filed?
a. BEFORE or AFTER conviction by the MTC; and 1. Notify the prosecution of the hearing for the
b. BEFORE conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT application for bail OR to require the prosecution
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life to submit its recommendation;
imprisonment. (R114, S4) 2. To conduct a hearing regardless if the
prosecution refuses to submit a recommendation;
Aside from these two, is there any other instance when 3. Determine, based on the summary of evidence
bail is a matter of right? presented by the prosecution, whether or not the
- When the accused is charged with an offense evidence of guilt is strong; and
punishable with death, reclusion perpetua or life 4. If the evidence of guilt is NOT strong, the bail
imprisonment, when the evidence of guilt is NOT must be granted, otherwise, it must be denied.
strong, because under Section 13 of Article 3, the
Constitution provides that ALL persons shall be Do these obligations apply to bail as a matter of right?
entitled to bail, except those persons charged - NO. However, hearing is only required even if a
with an offense punishable with death, reclusion bail is a matter of right. Hearing is conducted not
perpetua or death, when the evidence of guilt is to determine the weight of evidence of guilt, but
strong. to determine the reasonable amount of bail.

Page 47 of 67
What are the factors that must be considered by the information or at the time when the application
court in determining the reasonable amount of bail? for bail is pending.
1. Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense; ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
3. Penalty for the offense charged; The petitioner contends that with the attendance of two
4. Character and reputation of the accused; mitigating circumstances (above 70 years old and
5. Age and health of the accused; voluntary surrender) and no aggravating circumstances,
6. Weight of the evidence against the accused; the maximum penalty shall be that next lower in degree.
7. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial; Hence, the maximum penalty imposable shall be
8. Forfeiture of other bail; reclusion temporal. Can the court then consider the bail
9. The fact that the accused was a fugitive from as a matter of right?
justice when arrested; and - NO. The penalty imposed by law shall be the basis
10. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on in determining whether the bail is a matter of
bail. (R114, S9) right or discretion, and not the penalty which
may be imposed by the court, because that
The enumeration is NOT exclusive. penalty may be higher or lower if we consider the
attending circumstances in the case.
BASCO VS. RAPATALO
The accused was detained and one day, the family of the May an accused who is charged of an offense punishable
victim was surprised to see him in their town. They by reclusion perpetua but convicted by the RTC to suffer
inquired and they saw a note in the application for bail only reclusion temporal be granted bail on appeal?
the handwritten note of the prosecution as to the - YES. He may still be granted bail as a matter of
recommended amount. Is that substantial compliance discretion. It becomes a matter of discretion
with the requirements? because it is being applied for AFTER conviction.
- NO. There must still be a hearing to be conducted However, only the appellate court may determine
by the court, summary or otherwise. Since the the propriety of the grant of application.
determination of whether or not the evidence of
guilt against the accused is strong is a matter of As a general rule, AFTER conviction of an offense NOT
judicial discretion, the judge is mandated to punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
conduct a hearing even in cases where the death, bail is a matter of discretion. What is the
prosecution chooses to just file a comment or exception?
leave the application for bail to the discretion of - If the accused:
the court. a. Is a rescidivist, quasi-rescidivist, or habitual
BAYLON VS. SISON delinquent, or has committed the crime
Is a motion for application for bail subject to the 3-day aggravated by the circumstance of
notice rule? reiteration;
- YES. b. Has previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
What is the reason for this rule? conditions of his bail without valid
- Denial of this 3-day notice rule would be a denial justification;
of the due process on the part of the prosecution c. Committed the offense while under
because they will not be able to prepare for the probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
presentation of evidence to prove that the d. The circumstances of his case indicate the
evidence of guilt is strong. probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit
PEOPLE VS. JUDGE DONATO another crime during the pendency of the
In determining whether bail is a matter of right, what appeal.
penalty should be considered by the court? If there is a
variance between the penalty at the time of the filing of PEOPLE VS. JUDGE DONATO
the criminal information and at the time of the pendency Is the right to bail a waivable right?
of the application for bail, what penalty shall be used to - YES.
determine the character of bail?
- It is always the lower penalty, whether it may be Is there a required formality for a valid waiver of the
at the time of the filing of the criminal right to bail?
- NO. It is only required that the waiver be
voluntarily and knowingly made.
Page 48 of 67
 executory upon its finality. In extradition, the
In this case, there was a compromise agreement between decision cannot be final unless and until the
the government and the accused, that the accused shall President approves the judicial decision.
remain in the custody of the government during the 4. In criminal cases, the required quantum of proof
pendency of his rebellion cases. Is this a valid waiver of is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In extradition
the right to bail? proceedings, a mere prima facie evidence will
- YES. There is no required formality in the suffice to order the extradition of a fugitive.
Constitution for the validity of a waiver of the 5. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature
right to bail, and it is not contrary to law, public while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown
order, public policy, morals, good customs, or trial.
prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law (Article 6, NCC). GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG VS. OLALIA
What is the standard of evidence that must be applied by
COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA the court in determining whether bail may be granted
Is the right to available to the members of the AFP? under Section 1 of Article 3?
- YES. The Constitution says “ALL PERSONS…” The - Clear and convincing evidence that:
only exception is when they are charged with the 1. The extraditee is not a flight risk and that he
General Court Martial. If they are charged before will not pose a threat to the community; and
regular courts, then they are entitled to bail. 2. That he will abide with all the orders and
processes of the extradition court.
May the right to bail be extended in non-criminal
proceedings?
- NO. Section 13 of Article is specific enough to
cover only those charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death, which means that it only
covers criminal cases.

But can we not say that since extradition, deportation,

etc. use the mechanisms of criminal cases, then Section
13 of Article 3 shall be extended to them as well?
- NO. Article 3, Section 1 is broad enough to include
the right to bail in non-criminal proceedings.

GOVERNMENT OF US VS. PURUGANAN

What are the five postulates of extradition?
1. Extradition is a major instrument for the
suppression of crime;
2. The requesting state will accord due process to
the accused;
3. Proceedings are sui generis;
4. Compliance shall be in good faith; and
5. There is an underlying risk of flight.

What are the proofs that extradition proceedings are not

criminal in nature?
1. The process of extradition does not involve the
determination of the guilt or innocence of an
accused;
2. The only two issues that must be resolved by the
extradition court are:
i. Whether the extradition treaty has been
complied with; and
ii. Whether the person is extraditable.
3. In judicial proceedings including criminal
proceedings, the judgment of the court becomes
Page 49 of 67
 - It violates the right of the accused to speedy
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS trial, which amounts to a violation of criminal
OF THE ACCUSED due process.

Section 14 But in this case, it has been suggested that the long
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a delay in terminating the preliminary investigation
criminal offense without due process of law. should not be deemed fatal, for even the complete
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall absence of a preliminary investigation does not
be presumed innocent until the contrary is warrant the dismissal of the investigation. How did
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard the SC rule on that?
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the - The absence of a preliminary investigation
nature and cause of the accusation against can be corrected by giving the accused such
him, to have a speedy, impartial and public investigation.
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and - But an undue/inordinate delay in the conduct
to have compulsory processes to secure the of preliminary investigation cannot be
attendance of witnesses and the production corrected, for until now, man has not yet
of evidence in his behalf. However, after invented a device for setting back time. It is
arraignment, trial may proceed worse to have an inordinate delay than not to
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: have a preliminary investigation at all.
Provided, that he has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable. What is the legal principle behind the rule that
inordinate delay in the conduct of preliminary
What are the differences in the due process under investigation is a ground for the dismissal of the
Section 1 and Section 14 of Article 3? complaint with prejudice?
- Section 1 is also applicable to other cases, like - Justice delayed is justice denied.
civil and administrative. - Once justice is delayed, there is already a
- Section 1 deals with both substantive and denial of justice.
procedural due process, while Section14
deals only with procedural due process. GALMAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
- In Section 1, all persons are entitled to due How about the mere attendance of the Presiding
process of law, while the right to due process Justice of the Sandiganbayan where the criminal
is specific only as to the accused in Section case is pending, what is the effect of the
14. acquiescence of the Presiding Justice to the call of
the President?
ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO - All semblance of impartiality have already
What are the essential elements of criminal due been lost. From the moment they stepped
process? inside Malacanang Palace, the decision is no
1. The court must be clothed with jurisdiction longer based on evidence but by pre-
or authority to try the criminal case; determined judgment of acquittal.
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be validly acquired; This is one of the cases where the SC reversed a
3. The accused be given the opportunity to be judgment of acquittal, because as we will learn later,
heard; and judgments of acquittal are final judgments under the
4. The judgment is rendered only upon lawful constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. In
hearing. this case, the SC reversed the judgment because the
SC considered the trial as a sham trial or the “non-
trial of the century”.
TATAD VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
All the rights under Section 14 are rights of the
The preliminary investigation in this case lasted for
accused, except for what?
more than two years. What is the effect of the
- Trial in absentia. It is a right belonging to the
inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary
prosecution.
investigation?
Page 50 of 67
 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE conspiracy. In a conspiracy, the guilt of one is the
guilt of all. According to the appellants, since the
Why does the Constitution favor presumption of guilt of one is the guilt of all, the innocence of one is
innocence? Why can’t the Constitution be neutral? the innocence of all. Since in this case, three were
- Criminal cases are not equal contests. By the acquitted because their guilt was not proven beyond
title of the case alone, it says “People vs. Juan reasonable doubt, then that innocence should
dela Cruz”, which means that the accused likewise be extended to the co-accused. Did the SC
stands against the whole citizens of the agree?
Philippines. In order to balance the playing - NO. Not only is the criminal liability of each of
field, the Constitution gives the accused his the accused must be established beyond
presumption of innocence because the entire reasonable doubt, but also the conspiracy
prosecutorial arm of the State is being itself. Once the conspiracy is established, all
mobilized in order to establish his guilt. The the co-conspirators will be held liable for the
Constitution gives the accused a head start. act of the other co-conspirators.
- The prosecution failed to establish the
Is the presumption of innocence a disputable or conspiracy between the two appellants and
conclusive presumption? the other three acquitted. There is only
- Disputable. These presumptions of innocence conspiracy between the two appellants;
can be destroyed by a standard of evidence, hence, the act of one is the act of the other.
which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. DUMLAO VS. COMELEC
May a person already convicted of a crime be
What is meant by proof beyond reasonable doubt? treated similarly as a person merely charged of the
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not same offense?
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the - NO. To treat persons merely charged of an
possibility of error, produces absolute offense the same as those already convicted
certainty. Moral certainty is only required, or violates the constitutional presumption of
that degree of proof which produces innocence. Accusation is not synonymous
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (R133, with guilt. In order to disqualify a person
S2) from running for office, his guilt must first be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
May the presumption of innocence be destroyed by
circumstantial evidence? MARQUEZ VS. COMELEC
- YES. The SC wishes to extend the definition of fugitive
- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for from justice to persons merely charged of an offense
conviction if: in order to disqualify them from running in local
1. There is more than one circumstance; elective office under the LGC. Does that mean that
2. The facts from which the inferences are the SC has already changed its mind that persons
derived are proven; and merely charged can be treated the same as persons
3. The combination of all the circumstances already convicted?
is such as to produce a conviction beyond - NO. A person merely charged does not stand
reasonable doubt. in equal ground as a person who is a fugitive
from justice.
PEOPLE VS. DRAMAYO - In the case of Dumlao, the operative fact
Is accusation synonymous with guilt? that makes a person disqualified from office
- NO. is the mere filing of a criminal charge for acts
of disloyalty. Mere filing of a criminal
In this case, there were seven accused. Two were complaint does NOT make a person a fugitive
discharged as state witnesses. Three were acquitted from justice.
because their guilt was not proven beyond - On the other hand, the operative fact that
reasonable doubt. Two were convicted. According to makes a person a fugitive from justice is
the accused-appellants, they were charged under FLIGHT. The ground for the disqualification is
Page 51 of 67
 NOT the filing of the criminal complaint, but Even if the phrase “preferably of his own choice”
the flight to avoid punishment or to avoid does not appear in the Constitution but only in the
prosecution. Rules of Court?
- YES. The selection of a lawyer is one based in
confidence. Even during trial, the choice of
counsel of the accused should be preferred.
CORPUS VS. PEOPLE
What is the equipoise rule? AMION VS. JUDGE CHIONGSON
- If the evidence for the guilt of the accused Is the preference of choice of lawyer exclusive?
established by the prosecution and the - NO. Such preferential discretion cannot
evidence for the innocence of the accused as partake a discretion so absolute and
established by the defense are balanced, the arbitrary as would make the choice of
scales of justice must tilt in favor of the counsel refer exclusively to the predilection
innocence of the accused. of the accused. The accused’s discretion with
respect to his choice of counsel is not so
Supposing the evidence for both sides are not evenly much as to grant him a plenary prerogative
balanced, say for example, 51% for the prosecution, which would preclude other equally
49% for the defense. Can we apply equipoise rule? competent and independent counsels from
- NO. It only applies when the evidence for representing him. Otherwise, the pace of a
both sides are evenly balanced. criminal prosecution will be entirely dictated
by the accused to the detriment of the
In the case above, how should the case be decided by eventual resolution of the case.
the court? Is 51% enough proof beyond reasonable - The Constitutional right of the accused to be
doubt? Let’s exaggerate it: 99% guilty, 1% heard by counsel cannot be exercised to the
reasonable doubt. How should the court rule? When prejudice of other parties.
do we apply equipoise rule?
- The equipoise rule as an analytical tool is PEOPLE VS. HOLGADO
applied by the court in order to determine During custodial investigation, the person subjected
the character of each evidence, whether that to custodial investigation can waive his right to
evidence is for the guilt or for the innocence. counsel as long as the waiver is in writing and
At the end of presentation of evidence, the signed in the presence of counsel. During trial, can
court will assess each evidence in order to the accused waive his right to be represented by
determine whether it is an evidence for the counsel?
innocence or the guilt of the accused. - NO. Unless the accused is allowed to defend
himself in person or has employed counsel of
In criminal cases, to doubt is to acquit. This his choice, the court MUST assign a counsel
presupposes that doubt cannot co-exist with de oficio to defend him. (R116,S6)
conviction. Do you agree? - Even the most intelligent or educated men
- NO. Doubt can co-exist with conviction, as may have no skills in the science of the law,
long as that doubt is unreasonable, because particularly in the rules of procedure. And
the law only requires proof beyond without counsel, he may be convicted not
reasonable doubt. because he is guilty but because he does not
know how to establish and justify his
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF innocence.

AND COUNSEL Under the old Rules, what are the four obligations of
the court whenever an accused appears without
During trial, an accused is entitled to be represented attorney?
by a lawyer. Is the choice of the accused preferred? 1. It must inform the defendant that it is his
- YES. right to have attorney before being
arraigned;
Page 52 of 67
 2. After giving him such information, the court RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
must ask him if he desires the aid of an AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
attorney;
3. If he desires and is unable to employ
AGAINST HIM
attorney, the court must assign an attorney
What are the minimum allegations that must be
de oficio to defend him; and
contained in the information in order to comply
4. If the accused desires to procure an attorney
with this constitutional requirement?
of his own, the court must grant him
1. Name of the accused
reasonable time therefor.
2. Designation given to the offense by the
statute
Under the new Rules, an accused may be allowed to
3. Statements of acts or omissions
defend himself. Upon motion, the accused may be
4. Name of the offended party
allowed to defend himself in person when it
5. Approximate time and date
sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly
6. Place of the commission of the crime (R110,
protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
S6)
[R115, S1(c)]

There are only two instances when a counsel de PEOPLE VS. QUITLONG
What are the three reasons of the right to be
oficio is dispensed with:
1. When the accused is allowed to represent informed of the nature and cause of accusations
during trial?
himself;
1. To enable the accused to make his proper
2. When the accused wishes to procure the
defense;
services of a counsel de parte.
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal
for protection against a further prosecution
In this case, what was the single question of the
for the same cause; and
court during arraignment?
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so
- Do you have a lawyer or are you going to
plead guilty? that it may decide whether they are sufficient
in law to support a conviction, if one should
- The judge failed to comply with the four-fold
be had.
obligation of the court.
In this case, the information did not allege
PEOPLE VS. AGBAYANI
conspiracy. During the trial, the prosecution
Supposing the minutes of the arraignment do not
presented evidence to prove concerted criminal
disclose that the court complied with the four-fold
intent. Is that allowed?
obligations. Does that mean that the right of the
- NO. In a charge of conspiracy, the accused is
accused has been violated?
informed that he is not only being made
- NO. There is a presumption that the court
liable for his own acts, but also for the acts of
complied with the procedure. It is incumbent
the other accused. That is why it is very
upon the accused to prove otherwise. Mere
important that the accused be informed of
failure of the records of the court to indicate
this imputation in order that he may prepare
compliance with the four-fold obligation does
an intelligent defense.
not necessarily mean that it failed to acquire
the accused of such rights.
Under the constitution, an accused can only be
- For it is often less difficult to do things
convicted of an offense charged which is proven
correctly than to describe them correctly.
during the trial. As a general rule, an accused cannot
- If we will require that the record will put
be convicted of an offense not charged. Similarly, he
everything that transcribed during the trial, it
cannot be convicted of an offense that was charged
will reduce the efficacy of records. There are
but not proven. Is there an exemption to this general
some things that must be left to
rule?
presumptions and intendment.

Page 53 of 67
 - YES. In Rule 120, Section 4, when there is a of the accusation against him? In this case, the
variance between the offense charged in the respondent judge believes that arraignment is just a
complaint or information and that proved, useless or idle ceremony because he believes that
and the offense charged is included in or the complaint or the information is couched in a
necessarily includes the offense proved, the vague manner. The accused will not understand it
accused shall be convicted of the offense anyway. Did the SC agree?
proved which is included in the offense - NO. With more reason that the right of the
charged, or of the offense charged which is accused will be violated if the court will leave
included in the offense proved. him in the dark. Even if the complaint or
information is couched in a vague or general
When is an offense charged included in the offense manner, the counsel by his side shall help
proved? When does the offense charged include the him understand the nature and cause of the
offense proved? accusation against him.
- An offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as
alleged in the complaint or information,
constitute the latter. And an offense charged
is necessarily included in the offense proved,
when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting
the latter. (R120, S5)

SORIANO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

The offense charged is violation of Section 3(e) of RA
3019, but since RA 3019 is a special law, the offense
can only be in the consummated stage. This offense
includes the offense of Estafa thru Falsification of
Official Document. In that regard, since what was
proven is only in the attempted stage, the SC
sustained the conviction of the accused for the crime
of attempt to Estafa thru Falsification of Official
Document.

Supposing the variance is between the title of the

offense in the complaint and the narration of the
facts in the body of the complaint, which will
prevail?
- The narration of the facts.

Would that not violate the right of the accused to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him?
- NO. The designation of the offense is only a
conclusion of law. What prevails is the
narration of facts or omission as embodied in
the complaint.

BORJA VS. MENDOZA

What is the relevance of arraignment in the right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
Page 54 of 67
 RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND What is the missing qualification for all these three
instances in order to constitute a violation of the
PUBLIC TRIAL right to speedy trial?
- The cause of the delay must be caused by the
What does speedy trial mean?
prosecution.
- It refers to a proceeding conducted according
to the law of criminal procedure and the
How many times did the accused invoke his right to
rules and regulations, free from vexatious,
speedy trial?
capricious, and oppressive delays.
- Only when the material witness appeared
after 22 successive cancellations. In the
PEOPLE VS. TEE previous re-setting, the accused was silent.
How many trials dates were cancelled because of the On the other hand, the prosecution exhausted
failure of the material witness (NBI) to appear? all means to secure the presentation of the
- 20, for a period of 2 months.
material witness, only that the NBI defied the
orders of the court.
The SC said that speedy trial is necessarily a relative - Under the circumstances, the delay was not
concept. The determination whether the right is attributable to the prosecution.
violated requires a consideration of several factors.
What are these factors?
FLORES VS. PEOPLE
1. Length of the delay;
The case was on appeal, and there was a several
2. Reason for the delay;
years lull in the appellate court. After several years,
3. The conduct of the prosecution and the
the appellate court remanded the case to the trial
accused;
court for the determination of several facts. In
4. The efforts exerted by the defendant to assert
determining whether there is a violation of the right
his right; and
to speedy trial, is the delay at the appeal stage
5. The prejudice and damage caused to the
relevant?
accused.
- NO. The right to speedy trial under Section 14
only pertains to the trial proper, and
Applying these factors, was there a violation of the
proceedings anterior to the trial.
right to speedy trial in this case?
- NO. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 provides
Why?
that the trial period for the criminal cases
- Justice Laurel said that the accused is entitled
should be in general 180 days. However, in
to speedy trial so that if innocent, he may be
determining the right of an accused to speedy
spared from the anxiety and the agony
trial, the courts should do more than a
caused by the prosecution. If he be guilty, he
mathematical computation of the number of
may, at the very least, be relieved from being
postponements of the scheduled hearings of
kept long in suspense for what is in store for
the case.
him.
- The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated
when:
a. The proceedings are attended by CONDE VS. RIVERA
Several complaints were filed against a midwife in
vexatious, capricious and oppressive
Tayabas. Successively, they were dismissed. But for
delays; or
the last one, she was being required to attend the
b. When unjustified postponements are
trial and together with her witnesses, only for the
asked for and secured; or
prosecution to move for the resetting of the case.
c. When without cause or justifiable motive,
The SC said that the accused was made to dance
a long period of time allowed to elapse
attendance in court while investigations and trials
without the party having his case tried.
are arbitrarily postponed without her consent, is
palpably and openly unjust to her and a detriment to
the public.

Page 55 of 67
Why did the SC say that she was made to dance in the document and the person appearing
attendance? before him are one and the same, and that the
- Remember that the accused here is from the person signed the document voluntarily.
province. During trial, she will attend
together with her witnesses, only to be PEOPLE VS. TEEHANKEE
informed that the hearing is postponed. The SC compared our judges to jury in a jury system.
- The SC was thinking of a dance routine: cha- What is the difference?
cha. Because she was going back and forth - Our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not
from the province, the SC said that she was that of a hermit who is out of touch with the
made to dance attendance in court. world. Jury members are overly protected
from publicity lest they lose their
The remedy in case of violation to the right to impartiality.
speedy trial is: - Our judges are learned in the law and trained
a. To compel a dismissal of the information by to disregard off-court evidence and on-
mandamus; or camera performances of parties to a
b. To compel a writ of habeas corpus if his litigation. Their mere exposure to
liberty is restrained. publications and publicity stunt does not per
se fatally infect their impartiality.
MATEO VS. VILLALUZ
What does impartial trial mean? What did Mark Twain say about his protest against
- Every litigant is entitled to no less than the the jury system?
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. - A gentleman of high social standing,
- An impartial judge is characterized as a intelligence and probity swear that the
cerebral man who deliberately holds in check testimony under same oath outweighs with
the tug and pull of purely personal him street blah blah blah.
preferences and prejudices which he shares
with the rest of his fellow mortals. The accused contends that the pervasive publicity of
his trial constitutes prejudicial publicity or a
What did the judge do in order to merit his violation of his right to an impartial trial, because
disqualification in the case? according to him, the judge may be influenced to
- He notarized the affidavit of a material convict him. No less than the President herself
witness who later on recanted in his visited the victim while she was still in the hospital.
testimony because the latter claims that his The totality of the facts may influence the court in
testimony was forced. order to convict him. Did the SC apply the rule of
prejudicial publicity?
Since the judge only notarized the document, why - NO. The test to be applied in determining
would he be disqualified to continue with the case? whether there is prejudicial publicity is the
- In administering the oath of the affiant, the totality of evidence. There must be allegation
officer attests that the statements are made and proof that the judges have been unduly
voluntarily. influenced, not simply that they might be, by
- There are only two probabilities in this case: the barrage of publicity.
1. The attestation of the judge is not true; or
2. The witness is lying. Aside from rendering decision based on evidence,
- In both cases, the judge can no longer be what is also required under the constitutional
expected to discharge the cold neutrality of mandate of right to impartial trial?
an impartial judge. - The judge has both the duty of
1. Rendering a just judgment; and
Is the notary public required to confirm the 2. Rendering it in such a manner free from
truthfulness of the statements in the document? suspicion as to its fairness and objectivity.
- NO. The only duty of the notary public is to
ensure that the person whose name appears
Page 56 of 67
A judge must not only be impartial. He must also
appear to be impartial. Why?
- The people will no longer trust the legal
process but will resort to extra-judicial
activities instead.

GARCIA VS. DOMINGO

What does public trial mean?
- Trial is public when anyone who wants to
observe how the judge conducts his
proceedings during trial can do so without
any restraint.
- Trial is public when the accused, his friends,
relatives and counsel can attend the
proceedings.

Why are the proceedings inside the chamber of the

judge public despite the fact that the room can only
accommodate a few people?
- There was no showing that the public was
thereby excluded from the proceedings.
Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions.
Some are smaller than others. It suffices to
satisfy the requirement of a trial being public
if the accused could have his friends,
relatives, and counsel present.

What is the reason why trials should be public?

- To serve as a safeguard against any attempt
to employ our courts as instruments of
persecution. The knowledge that every
criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous
review in the form of public opinion is an
effective restraint on possible abuse of
judicial power.

Since the right to public trial belongs to the accused,

can he demand a private trial?
- NO. While the prosecution may not demand a
public trial under Section 14, legal basis is
found on Section 1 of Article 3, which is the
due process of law. The wisdom behind a
public trial is to guard against the
arbitrariness of the judge. This safeguard is
also available to the prosecution as much as
the accused.

Page 57 of 67
 RIGHT TO MEET WITNESSES FACE TO subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
FACE (RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION)
Supposing there are several cases between A and B.
US VS. JAVIER These several cases stemmed from the issuance of a
Why is the right to confrontation essential? check which was dishonored by the drawee bank. A
- The right to confrontation is essential because issued the check payable to the order of B. A issued a
cross-examination is essential. check in payment of some goods that he procured from B.
- In order to allow the court to observe the Upon presentation for payment, the check was
deportment and appearance of the witness. dishonored by the drawee bank. B filed a criminal case
for violation of BP 22. B also filed a criminal case against
Does the Constitution allow ex parte affidavit? Because A for violation of the Revised Penal Code (Estafa). In the
remember in this case, the arresting officer executed an BP 22 case, B presented the bank manager where A drew
affidavit, but unfortunately, he died before his the check in question. In the BP 22 case, the bank
presentation as a witness. The issue therefore is whether manager testified that the check was drawn by A from an
the prosecution can present his affidavit even if he can no account which is already closed. A crossed-examined the
longer be presented as a witness? bank manager in the BP 22 case. Unfortunately, the bank
- NO. The right to confrontation precludes ex parte manager died thereafter and can no longer be presented
affidavits. in the estafa case. Can the testimony of the bank manager
- No accusation is permitted to be made against his in the BP 22 case be admitted in the estafa case?
back or in his absence nor is any derogatory - YES. The testimony of a witness in one case
information accepted if it is made anonymously, cannot be used as a testimony against the
as in poison pen letters sent by persons who accused in other cases. The substance of the
cannot stand by their libels and must shroud testimony by the bank manager in the BP 22 case
their spite in secrecy. will be the same substance in the estafa case. This
- An accused can only be hailed to court by persons is contemplated in Rule 115, Section 1(f).
who can meet him face to face. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS TO
TALINO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF
Supposing co-accused are being indicted based on the WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF
same criminal information, but they were granted EVIDENCE
separate trial, may the testimony by a witness given in
one case be admitted as evidence in other cases without
presenting anew the witness? What are the two compulsory processes that may be
availed by the accused as well as the prosecution in
- NO. If this will be allowed, the other co-accused
criminal prosecutions?
may not exercise their right to confrontation or
1. Subpoena duces tecum
their right to cross-examination.
2. Subpoena ad testificandum
- As a general rule, the testimony of a witness in
one case cannot be used as a testimony against
May a subpoena ad testificandum be issued without a
the accused in other cases.
corresponding duces tecum?
- YES.
Is there an exception to this general rule?
- YES. The exception is when the accused in the
other case was able to cross-examine or confront May a subpoena duces tecum be issued without a
corresponding ad testificandum?
the witness in the first case.
- NO. The custodian must authenticate the
- Rule 115, Section 1(f):
document, hence, he shall also testify in court.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
- That is why the complete term for this subpoena
entitled to confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party is subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum.
may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony
ROCO VS. CONTRERAS
of a witness who is deceased, out of or cannot
with due diligence be found in the Philippines, What are the tests in order to determine whether this
unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given compulsory process can be issued by the court?
in another case or proceeding, judicial or 1. The books, documents or other thins requested
administrative, involving the same parties and must appear prima facie relevant to the issue
subject of the controversy (test of relevancy);
Page 58 of 67
 2. Such books must be reasonably described by the TRIAL IN ABSENCIA
parties to be readily identified (test of
definiteness). What are the requisites in order that trial in absentia may
proceed?
In this BP 22 case, the accused sought the issuance of 1. The accused has already been arraigned;
subpoena duces tecum for the production of books of 2. He was duly of notified of the trial; and
accounts, etc. Did his request comply with the two tests? 3. His absence is without a justification.
- NO. The test of definiteness was complied with,
but the relevancy test was not. What is the effect of trial in absentia?
- He loses the right to present evidence in his
When do we say that the evidence is relevant to comply behalf.
with the test of relevancy?
- Evidence is relevant when it can either establish Either by himself or through counsel?
either the guilt or innocence of the accused. - YES.
In this case, the gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of Is the right of the accused to be present in the trial
worthless checks. The documents procured will neither deemed waived? Can he still be represented by a
establish the guilt nor the innocence of the accused. In counsel?
that regard, the SC regarded the request as a fishing - NO. The authority of the counsel to appear during
expedition. the trial is derived from the right of the accused
to be present. If the accused has no right to be
present because he has waived the right to
appear during the trial, then with more reason
that the counsel does not have the right to appear
thereat because his authority is only derived from
the right of the accused to be present during the
trial.

Can the accused still exercise his right to confrontation?

- NO. Since he cannot appear either by himself or
by counsel, cross-examination is also deemed
waived.

Can we say now that an accused who is tried in absentia

is also not entitled to the presumption of innocence?
-

Page 59 of 67
 RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY 2. In the interest of national defense, all citizens
may be compelled by law to render personal
SERVITUDE military or civic service
- What is at stake in this instance is the very
Section 18 existence of the State itself.
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as
a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have 3. Naval enlistment – a person may be compelled to
been duly convicted. remain in such service until the end of the voyage
for which he contracted, not just partly but entire
What does involuntary servitude mean? voyage
- It is every condition of enforced or compulsory - Supposing the voyage consists of several ports,
service of one to another no matter under what is the exemption only applicable to each port?
form such servitude may be disguised. Meaning, if they reach one port, the exemption is
- It is the condition of one who is compelled by no longer applicable?
force, coercion, or imprisonment and against its - NO. It is applicable to the entire voyage.
will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or
not. 4. Posse commitatus – Under the Rules of Court,
ordinary persons may be compelled by law
In order to consider the act as an involuntary servitude, enforcement officers to aid and assist them in
there must be physical or moral compulsion. There must serving lawful orders
be coercion. Can there be involuntary servitude without Under the old concept of posse commitatus, the
compulsion or coercion? person summoned may be given authority to
- YES. Under the Expanded Trafficking of Persons, enforce the law. But our Rules of Court only allow
involuntary servitude is extended to include the the aid or assistance to law enforcers to serve a
use of any means or trickery in order to entice a warrant of arrest.
person to believe the obligation or the act. There
is no compulsion or force, but there is some 5. Return to work order – striking workers in
degree of deceit. industries affected by public interest because of
the nature of their duties.
What are the two aspects of involuntary servitude?
1. Slavery – that civil relation in which one man has 6. Patria potestas – unemancipated minor
absolute control or power over the life, fortune, In recognition of the natural and primary right
and liberty of another; and and duty of the parents in rearing the youth, they
2. Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by have the primary duty to discipline their children,
which the individual is restrained of his liberty so they may require performance of minor
and compelled to labor in liquidation of some activities.
debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his But of course, this right must be exercised along
will. with the rights of children, particularly VAWC
law, and anything that will be detrimental to their
CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR welfare.
The house helper was being prevented to leave the
services of her master because of unliquidated advances. 7. In pursuance of a legal duty
The SC granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus In the case of Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, the
because that constitutes involuntary servitude. doctrine applies to all public officers. Policemen
may also be required to perform an act against
Like any other constitutional rights, the right against their will, because it is an obligation mandated by
involuntary servitude is subject to several exceptions: law.
1. As a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted;
- Does this mean that a person convicted of a
crime may be required to perform forced labor?
- NO. As a general rule, prisoners cannot be
subjected to forced labor unless it is included in
the punishment. Example of forced labor which is
provided for by the law is community service.

Page 60 of 67
 PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
Section 19 shock the moral sense of the community.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, - The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is
degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted. not to be judged in the light of exceptional cases.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, Small transgressors for which the heavy net was
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, not spread are like small fishes, bound to be
the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death caught, and it is to meet such a situation as this
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to that courts are advised to make a
reclusion perpetua. recommendation to the Chief Executive for
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or clemency or reduction of the penalty.
degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate ECHEGARAY VS. SOJ
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall Under the 1973 Constitution, aside from cruel and
be dealt with by law. degrading punishment, it also prohibits unusual
punishment. What is the implication of the deletion in the
What are prohibited punishments? 1987 Constitution of the imposition of unusual
- Punishments which involve torture or lingering punishment?
death. It implies that there is something inhuman - Unusual means not common or new. The non-
or barbarous, something more than the making of prohibition of unusual punishment would allow
the crime. the Congress to enact a law providing for an
- Death is not a prohibited punishment. Only that uncommon punishment or a new punishment as
the Constitution limits the capital punishment to long as it is not cruel, degrading or inhuman.
heinous crimes. Death is a prohibited punishment
as to non-heinous crimes. Supposing during the execution of death penalty through
electrocution, on the day and the hour of the execution,
Section 19 prohibits excessive fines. On the other hand, there was a brownout. Can the convict invoke that the
Section 13 prohibits excessive bail. What is the resetting of the execution constitutes cruel punishment
difference? because it would prolong his agony?
- Excessive fines are imposed by law. Excessive bail - NO. To be considered as cruel punishment, the
is imposed by court for the provisional liberty of unnecessary suffering must be inherent in the
a person. Unlike bail, fine is a penalty imposed penalty.
upon a conviction of a crime.
In this case, the petitioner contends that the
PEOPLE VS. ESTOISTA implementation of death penalty by lethal injection
Does severity of the penalty make it cruel? The penalty entails pain because of the introduction of intravenous
for the unauthorized possession of unlicensed firearms lines of the convict. Did the SC agree?
under the law is 5yrs to 10yrs imprisonment. The - In order to constitute cruel punishment, it takes
accused in this case lived in an isolated ranch. The owner more than the infliction of pain. It must involve
of the firearm is his father. While hunting for wild torture or lingering death.
chicken, he accidentally shot a worker. He was being
charged for possession of unlicensed firearm. According PEOPLE VS. ESPARAS
to the trial court, the imposition of even the minimum We have learned in the case of People vs. Mapalao
penalty under the law is too much or too severe. This is that when an accused is tried in absentia and convicted in
the reason why it imposed a lower penalty – 6 months absentia, he cannot appeal in absentia. Is there an
imprisonment. Is that allowed? exception to that general rule?
- NO. The remedy provided under the Revised - YES. In cases when the death penalty is imposed
Penal Code in case of excessive punishment is for by the trial courts, they are still subject to the
the judge to impose the penalty provided for by automatic review of the SC regardless whether
law, then recommend to the Chief Executive the accused jumped bail or does not intend to
through the Secretary of Justice, for reduction of appeal.
the penalty, or clemency. - Nothing less than life is at stake and ay court
- Moreover, the SC said in this case that the severe decision authorizing the State to take life must be
penalty of 5-10years is not cruel. To be as error-free as possible.
considered as cruel, the penalty must be
Page 61 of 67
In a sense the trial court acts as a commissioner who Based on that, can we say that what is penalized then is
takes the testimony and reports thereon to the SC with not the mere issuance of worthless checks but the failure
his recommendation. But in the exercise of the automatic of the drawer to pay face value of the check within 5 days
review by the SC, the SC can delegate it in the meantime from notice of dishonor?
to the CA, to act as another line of commissioner. Once - NO. The obligation to pay within 5 days becomes
the CA sustains the conviction, then that conviction needs an obligation arising from law (BP 22), not from a
the approval of the SC. But when the CA decision reverses contract.
the trial court and imposes a penalty lower than death, or
acquits the accused, then the judgment attains finality. What is a poll tax?
- A tax levied upon a person for his membership in
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT a community without regard to his income or
property.
Section 20
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment Example?
of a poll tax. - Community Tax Certificate (CTC)

Why does the Constitution prohibit the imprisonment for Can we say that the amount of tax to be paid under the
non-payment of debt, which is the person’s legal CTC is based on income as well, because there is a
obligation? corresponding tax due depending on the income of the
- The protection is simply to promote social justice. taxpayer? So CTC is not a poll tax?
The presumption in dire financial condition is - NO. The cedula or the CTC is a poll tax because it
that all debtors are in good faith. only imposes a minimal amount of tax. Ordinarily,
the CTC is a condition for the exercise of political
What obligation is covered by Section 20? rights, e.g. the right to vote. The amount imposed
- Obligations ex contractu only. is only nominal.

LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ

What activity is sought to be addressed by this
constitutional right? There was a common law remedy
applied which is prohibited by this constitutional
guarantee. How do you call that legal remedy which
allows the creditor to take the body of the debtor until he
satisfies his civil obligation?
- Writ of habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum.

Petitioner contends that BP 22 violates the constitutional

guarantee prohibiting imprisonment for non-payment of
debt. According to the petitioner, BP 22 is a bad debts
law, hence violates the constitution. Did the SC agree?
- NO. BP 22 punishes the issuance of worthless
checks. Since checks are substitute for money, it
is the right of the State to regulate these
commercial documents in order to preserve the
integrity of the banking system.

The gravamen of BP22 is the mere issuance of worthless

checks. Does that mean that upon the mere issuance of a
worthless check, the drawer becomes criminally liable?
- NO. Under the law, even if the drawer knows that
the check will be dishonored because it was
drawn from a closed account, the drawing of the
check itself does not make him criminally liable.
He has an opportunity to pay the amount of the
check within 5 days from notice of dishonor.

Page 62 of 67
 DOUBLE JEOPARDY CITIZENSHIP
Section 21 1987 Constitution
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment Article IV
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an Section 1
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall The following are citizens of the Philippines:
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
What are the 2 kinds of double jeopardy? 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
1. Double jeopardy of punishment for the same the Philippines;
offense; and 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
2. Double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
PEOPLE VS. RELOVA 4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
Why is there a need to provide for a second type of law.
double jeopardy? Is the first type not enough? Supposing
the act is penalized under a national law. That same act is 1935 Constitution
also penalized by an ordinance. Supposing the elements 1. Those who were citizens of the Philippine Islands
of the violation of law and ordinance are the same. Is at the time of the adoption of the Commonwealth
there identity of cases? Is there double jeopardy for the Constitution on November 15, 1935;
same offense or same act? 2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
- Same act. parents who, prior to the adoption of the
Commonwealth Constitution, had been elected to
Why not same offense? public office in the Philippine Islands;
- National law and ordinance are not identical. 3. Those whose fathers were citizens of the
Philippines;
Supposing there are two ordinances providing for 4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the
identical offenses? Same offense? Philippines and, upon attaining majority age,
- YES. elected Philippine citizenship; and
5. Those who were naturalized in accordance with
What was the act involved in this case? law.
- Stealing electricity, which was punished by the
RPC (theft) and an ordinance. DAVID VS. SET
What is citizenship?
MELO VS. PEOPLE - Membership in a political community which is
Identity of offenses can be determined either by applying personal and more or less permanent in
the same evidence test or when the offense is attempted, character.
frustrated, included or necessarily includes the former - It is a legal device denoting political affiliation.
charge. - It is the right to have rights.

How about identity of acts? When do we say that the acts What is the core/substance of citizenship?
are identical? - The core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy
- The court will look into the position of the acts as political rights such as, the right to participate in
to motion and time, so much so that is the court the government principally through the:
determines that the act or series acts are so i. right to vote;
connected that they are motivated by one ii. right to hold public office, and
criminal intent or design, then it will give rise to iii. right to petition the government for
violation of law or ordinance, it may then redress of grievances.
constitute double jeopardy of the punishment for
the same act. What is the difference between citizenship and
nationality?
- Nationality is broader because it refers to
membership in a political community, one that is
personal and more or less permanent, not
temporary.
Page 63 of 67
 divided into several categories and local
Is nationality also a political concept? inhabitants are called “Indios” in order to
- No. It does not necessarily entail enjoyment of emphasize the inferiority of the local inhabitants.
certain political rights. - The first time that the term “citizens of the
- A national may be a citizen. But it does not Philippines” was used was under the Philippine
necessarily follow that all nationals are citizens. Bill of 1902. But under the Philippine Bill of 1902,
- Citizenship is a political concept. Nationality is an place of birth or being born in the Philippines is
ethnic or racial concept. not a condition in acquiring citizenship.
- While Justice Holms defines nationality as a - The SC said that there was a short gap between
people bound together by common attractions the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Treaty of Paris.
and repulsions blah blah, he was referring to Under the Treaty of Paris, in order to be
citizens, not to nationals, because the tie that considered as a citizen of the country to which he
binds the people under this definition is their resides, the children must be born to Spanish
common aspirations, not their common ancestry, subjects. So the SC said that there is a gap
not their ethnic origin. between April 11, 1899 and July 1, 1902. During
that period, there is rule or procedure in
BENGZON VS. HRET acquiring citizenship, hence, the historians
The SC said that there are two modes of acquiring consider the jus soli principle to be applicable
citizenship, which are? during that stage.
1. By birth
2. By naturalization Why? For what reason and for which legal basis?
- Because during that period, we were under the
Some legal writers extend these modes to marriage. So is protection of the United States of America, and
marriage a mode of acquiring citizenship? Separate from the prevailing doctrine in the US is jus soli. In that
birth and naturalization? regard, it was extended into this jurisdiction
- No. It is not correct to say that marriage is a when we were under the control and protection
separate mode of acquiring citizenship separate of the USA.
from naturalization, because marriage is a - This is the reason why children born in April 11,
derivative form of naturalization (marriage is 1899 to July 1, 1902 to parents who are not
subsumed under naturalization). Spanish subjects are considered as citizens of the
- There are only two traditional modes of acquiring Philippines.
citizenship, either by birth or naturalization.
What is the relevance of April 11, 1899? Why is there a
As a mode of acquiring citizenship by birth, what are the cutoff date “as of April 11, 1899”?
two applicable principles? - December 10, 1898 – Treaty of Paris was signed
1. Jus soli/loci - April 11, 1899 – a treaty is like a contract. The
2. Jus sanguinis only difference between an ordinary contract and
a treaty is that in the latter, the parties are
What is the difference between jus soli and jus sanguinis? sovereign states. In a contract, as long as there is
- Jus sanguinis is on the basis of blood relationship already a meeting of minds, the contract is
(the parents transmit their citizenship to their consummated. While in treaties, they become
children), whereas jus soli/loci is based on the effective upon the exchange of the instrument of
place of birth. ratification. This happened between the US and
Spain happened on April 11, 1899.
Under the 1987 Constitution, what principle is applicable
in acquiring citizenship by birth? How about in the 1935 Constitution, have we applied the
- Jus sanguinis. jus soli principle?
- YES. Under the second group, where children
DAVID VS. SET born of foreigner parents, born in the Philippines,
Has there been an instance or period when we have who, before the adoption of the 1935
adopted or applied the jus soli principle? Constitution had been elected to office.
- During the Spanish colonization, there was no - Under this group, one of the conditions is the
such animal called citizens of the Philippines, or place of birth. To become a Filipino citizen under
Filipino citizens. Inhabitants of the Philippines this group, the child must be born of foreigner
during that period are either Spanish nationals or parents; he is born in the Philippines; and that
Spanish subjects, and Spanish subjects are also
Page 64 of 67
 the person is elected to public office before the - A “naturalized citizen” is a former alien who
adoption of the 1935 Constitution. become a Filipino citizen through naturalization.
- This is a modified jus soli principle.
Is there any exception to the distinction?
How do we call this principle? - YES. Under the third category:
- The Caram rule. “Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
Why Caram principle? reaching the age of majority.” are deemed as
- Because if you look at the list of delegates to the natural-born citizens.
1934 Constitutional Convention, you will see a
delegate named Dr. Bermin Caram. He is a Is the enumeration under Section 1 exclusive?
member of the Constitutional Delegation - NO. Under international law, foundlings are
representing the District of Iloilo. He was born to considered citizens of the place where they are
Syrian parents. They were royalties in Syria, and found.
the parents of Caram migrated to the Philippines - (It may be said that foundlings fall under the 2nd
because of political persecution. He was born in category, but this is just a presumption. The legal
Iloilo, and he was elected to public office as a basis shall still be international laws.)
delegate to the constitutional convention. This
specific constitutional provision was intended to DAVID VS. SET
accommodate Dr. Bermin Caram to become a The SC cited the deliberation of the Constitutional
citizen of the Philippines. ( Chiongbian vs. de Convention of 1934 as to the status of foundlings. There
Leon) was a motion by Delegate Raphos to include in the list of
Filipino citizens—“foundlings.” This was rejected
Why is there a need to adopt him as a Filipino citizen by because of the objection of Delegates Montinola and
constitutional fiat? Roxas. Does that mean that since the motion was
- It is intended to correct the anomaly that a rejected, that they are not deemed citizens of the
member of the Constitutional Convention is not a Philippines?
Filipino citizen. In order to make the work of the - NO. The list under the Constitution is not
delegates as an all-Filipino output. It extends to exclusive. Persons who do not belong to any of
children similarly situated, but it was primarily the list may be considered as citizens of the
intended to correct the anomaly that a member of Philippines by application of generally accepted
the Constitutional Convention whose task is to principles of international law.
prepare the draft of a fundamental law is not a - They are not included in the list because they are
Filipino citizen. too few to merit a specific constitutional
provision.
Under the 1973 and the 1987 Constitution, there is no
doubt that citizenship can only be acquired by birth If foundlings are citizens of the Philippines and we said
through blood relationship (jus sanguinis). earlier that there are only two groups of Filipino citizens
(natural-born and naturalized), can we say that
Who are citizens of the Philippines under Section 1, foundlings are just naturalized citizens?
Article IV? - NO. The presumption that the foundling is a
- See provision on page 1. citizen of the Philippines attaches from the fact of
birth of the child. The child did not do any
TECSON VS. HRET positive act in order to acquire that presumption.
What are the two kinds of citizens of the Philippines?
1. Natural-born citizens; and Is the presumption that foundlings are citizens of the
2. Naturalized citizens Philippines conclusive?
- NO. This presumption may be contrary evidence.
What is the distinction between a natural-born and a
naturalized citizen? POE-LLAMANSARES VS. COMELEC
- “Natural-born citizens” is defined to those who Supposing a child was found in the Philippines with
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without parents unknown and the child has white complexion,
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect blonde hair and blue eyes. Does the child enjoy the
their Philippine citizenship. presumption that the child is a citizen of the Philippines?
- YES. Citizenship is not a human thoroughbred. A
Caucasian can become a Filipino citizen, then the
Page 65 of 67
 child, of course, of that Caucasian may have the - The requirement to elect Philippine citizenship
features of its parents. Physical features alone only applies to legitimate children, not to
would not negate Filipino citizenship. illegitimate children of Filipino mothers, who are
deemed natural-born citizens from birth.
In the case of Poe, the SC applied circumstancial evidence - This again is a manifestation that aside from the
in order to determine whether the petitioner may be four groups of citizens of the Philippines, there
considered as a citizen. According to the SC, statistical are other groups of citizens aside from those.
data show that it is almost a certainty that a child born
under the period during which the petitioner was found TECSON VS. COMELEC
was of a Filipino parent, or at least one of the parents is a The SC said that illegitimate children follow the
Filipino citizen. According to the SC, 99.8% probability citizenship of their only known parent, who is the
that the child is born to a Filipino parent during that mother. This is a generally accepted principle of
period. The SC likewise noted that the physical features international law. Do we apply this rule absolutely? That
of the petitioner are consistent with the features of a illegitimate children follow the citizenship of the mother?
Filipino citizen. These are circumstancial evidence that - NO.
can be used in order to strengthen the presumption. - In this case, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (FPJ) was
Nonetheless, the SC clarified in the case of David vs. born to an American mother, his parents were
SET that the child enjoys the presumption even if the not married, making him an illegitimate child.
child does not have physical features consistent with - The rule that illegitimate children follow the
citizens of the Philippines. citizenship of their mother was not applied in the
case of FPJ.
TECSON VS. COMELEC
As regards the 1st and 2nd group, the 1st group refers to Why?
Filipino citizens under previous Constitutions and under - The parentage of FPJ was traced back to his
judicial decisions as well. The 2nd group requires that grandfather, Lorenzo Pou, who, based on his
either one of the parents is a citizen of the Philippines. In death certificate (he was 84 years old when he
this case, the SC distinguished the children born under died on September 11, 1954), was already alive
the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions born to Filipino on April 11, 1899.
mothers. What is the difference? - The place of death of the grandfather was in
- Under the 1935 Constitution, children born to Pangasinan, hence, it is presumed that it is the
Filipino mothers only acquire an inchoate right to place of his residence at the time that he is alive.
citizenship to be elected upon reaching the age of It is presumed that the grandfather is already in
majority. They only acquire a right of expectancy. Pangasinan when the en masse Filipinization(??)
- Under the 1973 Constitution, a child born to of the Philippine Bill of 1902 was implemented.
Filipino mothers become a Filipino citizen In that regard, it was presumed that the
without performing any act to acquire or perfect grandfather benefitted from the en masse
that citizenship. Filipinization.
- Under the 1987 Constitution, aside from adopting - The SC applied presumption in order to grant
the principle under the 1973 Constitution, the Filipino citizenship to the grandfather of FPJ.
1987 Constitution even bent backward the 1935 - Since the grandfather is presumed to be a Filipino
Constitution by giving them the status of natural- citizen, then the father of FPJ is also a Filipino
born Filipino citizen in order to cure the male citizen. FPJ is then considered as a Filipino citizen
chauvinistic principle applied under the 1935 under the 3rd category of the 1935 Constitution:
Constitution, according to Father Bernas. those born to Filipino fathers, without any
qualification.
- We shall only apply rules of international law in
Why the cutoff of January 17, 1973? order to accommodate a child to become a
- Effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Filipino citizen. We cannot apply this rule in
order to deprive/prejudice/discriminate a child
REPUBLIC VS. LIM of its Filipino citizenship.
Are all children born to Filipino mothers under the 1935
CABILING MA VS. FERNANDEZ
Constitution required to elect Philippine citizenship to
acquire Philippine citizenship? Is there a formal procedure for the election of Filipino
- NO. In this case, the respondent did not elect citizenship under those belonging to the 3rd group?
Philippine citizenship. - Commonwealth Act No. 625

Page 66 of 67
What are the three requirements in order to validly elect - In the case of Co, the SC said that respondent Ong
Filipino citizenship? has informally elected Filipino citizenship by
1. Election of Filipino citizenship must be express, performing activities which are reserved only to
and it must be signed and sworn to by the party Filipino citizens.
concerned before any officer authorized to - In the case of Ching, the SC said that Ching cannot
administer oaths; be considered to have elected Filipino citizenship
2. It must be accompanied by an oath of allegiance merely by performing these activities.
to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines; and Why the difference?
3. It shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. - Respondent Ong’s father is already a naturalized
Filipino citizen while the respondent is still a
IN RE: CHING minor, therefore, respondent became a Filipino
When should the election be made under the 3rd group? citizen by derivative naturalization. It would be
- What constitutes reasonable time of election is 3 illogical for him to elect Filipino citizenship at the
years after attaining the age of majority, which is time he attains the age of majority.
21 years old. - In addition to that, he performed positive acts
- Notwithstanding the fact that under the 1987 that show his intent to elect Philippine
Constitution, the age of majority was already citizenship.
reduced into 18 years old, the SC held in this case - We apply the informal election of Filipino
as well as in the case of Co vs. HRET that the citizenship to children born to Filipino mothers
age of 21 shall apply, because that was the age of under the 1935 Constitution who are already
majority at the time of the enactment of CA 625. citizens of the Philippines at the time the
requirement to elect comes up.
CABILING MA VS. FERNANDEZ
Is the reasonable time of three years fixed? No more, no Why would respondent Ong still need to elect Philippine
less? citizenship when he is already a Filipino citizen when he
- NO. It is not an inflexible rule. It can be extended is a minor?
if the elector must show that he has the intention - In order to make him a natural-born Filipino
to elect Philippine citizenship after attaining the citizen.
age of majority - Without the informal election, at most, he is only
- In the case of Cuenco, the election was disallowed considered as a naturalized citizen because of the
because the petitioner is already 28 years old, or derivative naturalization.
7 years after attaining the age of 21.
- In the case of In Re Ching, 35 years old, or 14 Petitioner Ching was never a Filipino citizen. In that
years after attaining 21 years old. regard, he has to strictly comply with the requirements
of CA No. 625. It is already too late (14 years) to be
In order for children belonging to the 3rd group to considered reasonable time to elect Philippine
become Filipino citizens, they must elect Filipino citizenship.
citizenship. Election of Philippine citizenship is a formal
act. It must comply with CA No. 625. Is there a less formal But in the case of Cabiling Ma vs. Fernandez, the
act? registration happened 30 years after attaining the age of
- It is less formal when it is done through other 21, and the SC still allowed it. Why?
deliberate positive acts, like running for public - The actual election of express statement and oath
office, which requires citizenship as a of allegiance already constitute the election. With
qualification. respect to the registration, it is only to notify the
whole world that indeed, the person has elected
When do we apply this informal form of election? Philippine citizenship. The positive acts (running
- (Compare Co vs. HRET and In Re Ching) for election, etc), shall already constitute notice to
- In both cases, respondent Ong and petitioner the world of the election.
Ching were born to Filipino mothers. They were
born to Chinese fathers. They were both born We will only allow the person to complete the
under the 1935 Constitution. Both are CPAs(?). requirements when?
Both were elected to public office. Both - Only when the election are coupled with positive
participated during election. acts denoting genuine intention to elect
Philippine citizenship.

Page 67 of 67