II.

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Bill of Rights set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and
imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

Significance of the Bill of Rights

Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are
certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property which governmental power may not touch.

Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.

Classification of Rights

1. Political Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or indirect participation in the
establishment or administration of the government;

2. Civil Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for the purpose of securing
them the enjoyment of their means of happiness;

3. Social and Economic Rights; and,

4. Human Rights.

A. DUE PROCESS
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the
circumstances of particular cases

responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice

embodiment of sporting idea on fair play

guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

Protection of Person

Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property because its life
and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property

When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the action is valid.

not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.

1. Life

It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against physical harm. The
right to life is the right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of living.

2. Liberty

(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)

(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude

3. Property

anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract

all things within the commerce of man

However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. If created by
statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time.

Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will

Aspects of Due Process

1. Substantive Due Process

2. Procedural Due Process

As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.

As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in
the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life,
liberty or property

Requisites:

(a) Lawful Subject

(b) Lawful Means

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of government.

1. Judicial Due Process

Requisites:

(a) Impartial and Competent Court

(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property

(c) Hearing

not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough

right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable part of due process

the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing

Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process:

abatement of nuisance per se

preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges

cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime

statutory presumptions

(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)

2. Administrative Due Process

Requisites:

(a) Right to a hearing

(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented

(c) Decision must have something to support itself

(d) Evidence must be Substantial

(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected

(f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and law of the
controversy

(g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and
the reason for the decision rendered

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess
as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:

it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid; and,

it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle.

In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process because the nature of the
charges against the petitioner is not uncertain and void merely because general terms are used or because it
employed terms that were not defined. The Anti-Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act
which it purports to punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively interpose a
defense against on his behalf.

A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception violates the right of marital
privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

Although the Bill of Rights does not mention privacy the Court ruled that that the right was to be found in the
"penumbras" of other constitutional protections. The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra
where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.

In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New York for wrongfully and
unlawfully permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute allegedly violated mandates
that no employee shall contract or agree to work more than 10 hours per day.

Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.

Ruling: Yes. The statute is unconstitutional.

The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free contract between employer and employee by
determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.

The general right to make a contract in relation to ones business is a liberty protected by the 14th amendment.

The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights to prevent the individual from making
certain kinds of contracts in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health, morals and general welfare of
the society. In this instance, the 14th amendment cannot interfere.

The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the states interference with rights to labor
and contract.

Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and
legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his
person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.

Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an administrative court which exercises
judicial and quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees. National
Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs.
NLRC) and school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs.
Des Moines Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. It is a question of whether the
body or institution has a judicial or quasi-judicial function that makes it bound by the due process clause. (Judicial
function is synonymous to judicial power which is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving

rights that are legally enforceable and demandable or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to a matter in controversy).

In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings which essentially
exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function. These are:

(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof

(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

(3) The decision must have something to support itself

(4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion

(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected

(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate

(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.

B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The
equality it guarantees is legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before the law.

embraced in the concept of due process

embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility
from the government

Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general

Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice

Substantive Equality all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed.

Equality in enforcement of the law law be enforced and applied equally

Requisites of Valid Classification:

(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions

(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law

(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only

must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists

(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class

both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed

In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the equal protection clause
because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in
the same city or municipality for more than four years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of
election officers in order to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity
with the people of their place of assignment.

In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central by name. Ormos
Sugar Central is the only sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that such ordinance is not valid for it would be
discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central which alone comes under the ordinance.

C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 2, Art. III. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 2, Art. III deals with tangibles; embodies the castle doctrine (a man's house is his castle; a citizen
enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own
home.)

This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with enforcement
of the law. It does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
Section 3, Art. III. (1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Section 3 (1), Art. III deals with intangibles

Section 3 (2), Art. III Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

Exclusionary Rule evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)

available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be required to open for examination
by the State in the exercise of police power or power of taxation

The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)

General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final
finding of a violation of a law

Valid Warrantless Searches

[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]

1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) for dangerous weapons or anything that may have
been used or constitute in the commission of an offense

Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest

2. searches of moving vehicles

In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was stopped and searched. The
motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching officers received any confidential
information about the car. The Court held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving
vehicle as there was no probable cause.

3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view

Requisites:
1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent

4. there is no further search

4. enforcement of customs law

5. consented searches

6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)

In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: (W)here a police officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person
with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior
he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself
and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to
discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:

(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;

(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (Malacat)

7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry

8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

Valid Warrantless Arrest

1. in flagrante delicto
2. hot pursuit
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment

Requisites of a valid warrant

Arrest Warrant

1. Probable Cause

Search Warrant

Such facts and circumstances which

Such facts and circumstances which would

would lead a reasonably prudent man

lead a reasonably prudent man to believe

to believe that an offense has been

that an offense has been committed and

committed and the person sought to be the objects sought in the connection of the
must refer to one

arrested had committed it

(1) specific offense

offense are in the place sought to be

searched

2. Personal

The judge personally determines the

The judge must personally examine in the

determination of

existence of probable cause; it is not

form of searching questions and answers...

probable cause by necessary that he should personally

the judge

examine the complainant and his

in writing and under oath...

witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar)

the complainants and his witnesses...

Procedure:

on facts personally known to them...

and attach to the record their sworn
statements and affidavits.

(1) personally evaluate the fiscal's

report, or

(Silva vs Presiding Judge)

(2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it and

require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses

Preliminary inquiry (task of the judge)

determination of probable cause for
the issuance of warrant of arrest

Preliminary investigation
proper (task of the prosecutor)
ascertainment whether the offender
should be held for trial or be released

3. After

Not merely routinary but must

examination under beprobing and exhaustive

Not merely routinary but must

be probingand exhaustive

oath or affirmation
of the complainant
and the witnesses
he may produce

4.Particularity of

General Rule: it must contain

General Rule: when the description

description

thename/s of the persons to be

therein is as specific as the circumstances

arrested

will ordinarily allow.

Exception: if there is some descriptio

Exception: when no other more accurate

personae which will enable the officer

and detailed description could have been

to identify the accused

given.

In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved
according to the facts of the case.

Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not constitute unreasonable
searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there
is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.

Probable Cause facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient
to induce a cautious man to rely upon them.

In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine Times:... we found that
the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines. The Court held that
the affidavit does not establish probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.

In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the basis of a broad
statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. is in possession of printing equipment and other paraphernalia... used as
means of committing the offense of subversion. The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to establish
probable cause. It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported by particulars.

The Court also held that the search warrant description has the sweeping tenor making the document a general
warrant. The search warrant particularly states:all printing equipment, typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper
and any other documents...

It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is
directed. It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.

In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of personally in the search and seizure clause. It
stated that in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause, what is required is personal
determination and not personal examination.

In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or
recommendation of a prosecutor that probable cause exists.

The judge must look at the report, the affidavits, the

transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.

In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant
authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases: Book of accounts, financial records, vouchers...and other
documents showing all business transactions....

The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely
personal and cannot be availed by third parties.