UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

College of Law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Preliminary Examination

Dean Antonio B. Arellano Time: 5:30 -7:30 PM

Professor Date: 07 March 2024
PART I

Basic Concepts

1. Give and explain the “two-fold aspect of due process of law”

provision in Section 1 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. (5pts)

Article 3, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that 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 two-fold aspect of the due process of law are as follows:
Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property. The
inquiry in this regard is not whether or not the law is being enforced in
accordance with the prescribed manner but whether or not, to begin with,
it is a proper exercise of legislative power. To be so, the law must have a
valid governmental objective. Furthermore, this objective must be
pursued in a lawful manner, or, in other words, the means employed
must be reasonably related to the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive.

Procedural due process guarantees a justice which hears before it

condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement only
after trial. The heart of procedural due process is the need for notice and
an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, what is required is not actual
hearing but a real opportunity to be heard. Thus, one who refuses to
appear at a hearing is not thereby denied due process if a decision is
reached without waiting for him. Likewise, the requirement of due
process can be satisfied by subsequent due hearing. It refers to the
method or manner by which the law is enforced. Its basic elements are
notice, opportunity to be heard and jurisdiction. Its essence is simply the
opportunity to be heard as applied to administrative proceedings, and
opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of.
2. Give a brief explanation of the meaning of the terms:
a) Life; (b) Liberty, and (c) Property as used in the Constitution’s
due Process Clause. (5pts)

Life as understood under the due process clause connotes in the first place
the integrity of the physical person. The meaning is that it is not permissible for the
government to deprive the individual of any part of his body, and this is true even
if it be as punishment for a crime. Accordingly, it will be unlawful to amputate his
hands if he is a thief or castrate him if he is a rapist or strike out his eyes for unjust
vexation or cut off his tongue for objectionable remarks he may have made.
According to Mabini, “Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong.”
Liberty as guaranteed under the due process clause is not unbridled license; it is
liberty regulated by law. A person is free to act but he may exercise his rights only
in such manner as not to injure the rights of others. One’s own liberty must be
enjoyed consistently with the enjoyment of a like liberty by others. In other words,
the individual, as creature of society, should be prepared to surrender part of his
freedom for the benefit of the greater number in recognition of the time-honored
principle of “salus populi est suprema lex”.

1
 Property is anything that can come under the right of the ownership and
be the subject of contract. It refers to the thing itself with respect to which legal
relations between persons exist, or it may refer to the rights with respect to the
thing. The constitutional provision however, has reference more to the rights over
the thing. It includes the right to own, possess, use, alienate, and even destroy,
subject to the right of the State and of other persons. This will include all things
which are real, personal, tangible and intangible that are within the commerce of
man like lands, jewelries, automobiles, buildings, goodwill, inheritance, intellectual
creations, future earnings, work of art, animals, mortgages and insurance
proceeds.

3. Give and explain the meaning of the “Equal Protection of the Laws”
clause of the Constitution. (5pts)

The equal protection of the laws 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. Under it, each individual is
dealt with as an equal person in the law, which does not treat the person
differently because of who he is or what he is or what he possesses. The goddess
of Justice is portrayed with a blindfold, not because she must be hindered in seeing
where the right lies, but that she may not discriminate against suitors before her,
dispensing instead an even-handed justice to all." The equality guaranteed,
however, "is not a disembodied equality." It does not deny to the state the power
to recognize and act upon factual differences between individuals and classes. It
recognizes that inherent in the right to legislate is the right to classify. The
problem, thus, in equal protection cases is one of determining the validity of the
classification made by law.
The scope of the guarantee includes the following: The equal protection of
the laws is a restraint to all the organs of the government, their subordinate
instrumentalities and subdivision and on the three inherent powers of the
government which are the police power, eminent domain and taxation; The
guarantee is available to all persons; It extends only to civil rights; It is also not
intended to enforce social equality; The guarantee is intended as a safeguard
against acts of the State and does not extend to discrimination of private
individuals unless the discrimination is aided or supported by State action.

4. Give the 4 requisites of a valid classification under the Equal

Protection Clause. (5pts)

In the case of People v. Cayat, it summarized early jurisprudence on equal

protection. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of
the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification. And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of
the same class.

5. Give the requisites of a valid Search Warrant and a valid Warrant of

Arrest. (5pts)
The requisites of a valid Search warrant are as follows:

(1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be

determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and
under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may
produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally
known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
searched and the things to be seized.

The requisites of a valid Warrant of arrest are the following:

(1) Based on the existence or finding of probable cause;

2
 (2) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) The determination must be made after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and
(4) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

6. Explain the meaning of “probable cause” as basis for the issuance of an

Arrest Warrant. (5pts)

“No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable
cause”. Probable cause must be defined in relation to the action which it justifies.
Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest would mean
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested. Probable cause for a search would mean such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought to be searched. It should be noted, however, that unlike proof
of probable cause for warrant of arrest, probable cause for a search warrant need
not point to a specific offender. But, in either case, it should be emphasized that
what is required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but merely probable cause.
"Evidence required to establish guilt is not necessary.
Probable cause is the reasonable ground supported by facts and
circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action, and the
means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper. It is such facts and
circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant, that are in themselves
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof.
7. Explain the importance of a warrant of arrest in the person’s exercise of
the Right to Due Process of Law. (5pts)

A warrant of arrest is important in the person’s exercise of the Right to Due

Process of Law in order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The
judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and
under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions
and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing
the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice. Thus, a judge cannot base his finding of probable cause solely on the
statement of a witness whom he did not personally examine in writing and under
oath and without propounding searching questions.

8. Why is it necessary that (a) a warrant of arrest and (b) a search warrant
must provide for particular descriptions of the person to be arrested or of
the place or things to be searched and seized? (5pts)

It is necessary for a Warrant of Arrest to provide for particular

descriptions of the person to be arrested because ideally, the person sought to be
arrested should be identified by name. If the warrant issued is without a name or
with the name in blank such that it can be enforced against any person, it is
unquestionably void. Thus, a warrant issued against “John Doe or Richard Doe
whose other or true name is to your complainant unknown” was held insufficient
and illegal. However, if there is description personae that will enable the officer to
identify the accused, it will satisfy the constitutional requirement.
It is necessary for a Search Warrant to provide for particular descriptions
of the place or things to be searched and seized so that the person who is tasked
to seize these things will know what are the particular things which must be
rightfully seized. This is to avoid taking into custody the things which are not
supposed to be seized as illegally seized evidence are inadmissible in Court. The
evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to
those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant. To leave the
officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the
end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses
may not be committed. This would mean therefore that whatever is not included in
3
the description may not be seized. A search warrant may be said to particularly
describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the description expresses a conclusion
of fact, not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search
and seizure; or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

9. & 10. Is it necessary that the judge must personally examine under Oath
or Affirmation the complainant and witnesses pursuant to Section 2,
Article III of the Constitution before the court can issue, (a) Arrest
Warrant and,
(b) Search Warrant? Explain. (10pts)

No. It is not necessary that the judge must personally examine under Oath or
Affirmation the complainant and witnesses pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution before the court can issue an Arrest Warrant. In Soliven v. Judge
Makasiar, the Court said: The addition of the word "personally" after the word
"determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to
issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law," has
apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the
judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination
of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate
interpretation. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses.
It is also not necessary for the judge to personally examine under Oath or
Affirmation the complainant and witnesses pursuant to Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution before the court can issue a Search Warrant. The Judge does not
have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can
perform the same functions as a commissioner in the taking of evidence. However,
there should be a report and necessary documents supporting a Fiscal's bare
certification. All of these should be before the Judge. The extent of the Judge's
personal examination depends on the circumstances of each case. We cannot
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's examination should
be. The judge has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the personal
determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. It can be as brief as or as
detailed as the circumstances of each case require. To be sure, the Judge must go
beyond the Prosecutor's certification. Thus, what is clear now is that a judge is not
required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses or to await the
submission of counter affidavits from an accused. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and,
on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this
procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary
examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on
hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.

Part II
Illustrative Cases

1. A criminal complaint for murder against “X” was filed before the Office of
the City Prosecutor which has jurisdiction over the criminal offense. The
City Prosecutor after due examination of the case records and of the
evidence submitted by the police investigators, found sufficient admissible
evidence supportive of a finding that probable cause for the crime of
murder exists against “X” and immediately filed the appropriate
4
 Information with the Regional Trial Court in the City where the murder
was committed. The Counsel of “X” filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for
lack of Jurisdiction of the Office of the City Prosecutor. If you were the
Judge, will you grant the Motion? Why or Why not? (10pts)

Yes. If I were the judge, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction of the Office of City Prosecutor.
Jurisdiction is the power or authority given by the law to a court or
tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies. It is a power
vested in the court and not in the judge. In this case, the Office of the City
Prosecutor has no jurisdiction over the criminal offense contrary to the facts
of the given case. The prosecutor does not determine the guilt or innocence
of the accused, but whether the offender should be held for trial or should be
released. In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is determined in two (2)
stages. The first is at the executive level where determination is made by the
prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, before the filing of the
criminal information. The second is at the judicial level, undertaken by the
judge before the issuance of the warrant. Furthermore, due process was not
observed. There must be preliminary investigation conducted by the
prosecutor or the fiscal and an information must not be submitted based
solely on the report of the police investigators. The respondents should also
be given a chance to submit their defense evidence to the Office of the City
Prosecutor.
Hence, if I were the judge, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction of the Office of City Prosecutor due to grave abuse of
discretion.

5
 2. In “People vs. Marti”, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State.

Does this ruling totally exclude and exempt private persons and
groups from liabilities for any violation or violations of the rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If yes, why? If no, why not? (10pts)

No. This ruling does not totally exclude and exempt private persons and
groups from liabilities for any violation or violations of the rights guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights.
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In relation to the case of People vs. Marti,
the Bill of Rights only tempers governmental power and protects the individual
against any aggressor and unwarranted interference by any department of
government and its agencies. What it does is to declare some forbidden zones in
the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. Thus, alleged violations of
the right against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against
the State by an individual unjustly traduced by exercise of sovereign authority.
The protection cannot be extended to acts committed to private individuals as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. Any
liabilities incurred by private persons in the course of their actions may subject
them to civil liabilities which means that they cannot be totally exempted from
liabilities for any violation of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Hence, this ruling does not totally exclude and exempt private persons and
groups from liabilities for any violation or violations of the rights guaranteed in the
Bill of Rights.

3. City Prosecutor “X” was appointed as Regional Prosecutor. Later, a

Resolution on Preliminary Investigation finding probable cause against the
Respondent which he previously promulgated as then City Prosecutor was
elevated by the Respondent to the Regional Office on Appeal. The counsel
of the Complainant-Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on the
ground that it violates Due Process of Law. Is the Counsel Correct?
Explain your answer. (10pts)

Yes. The Counsel is correct.

Due process of law means fundamental fairness. In order that the review
of a decision would not turn out to be a farce, the reviewing officer must perforce
be other than the person who already have an information about the facts of the
case. Otherwise, there could be no other different view or there would be no real
review of the case as it would become once which is inevitably biased. There is a
violation of due process when the same officer who made the decision or
recommendation under review decides it on appeal. Thus, in a case decided by
the Supreme Court, it was held in the decision of a Department Secretary
affirming his own in a case when he was still a Bureau Director was void because
it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and was a mockery of
administrative justice. In this case, the Regional Prosecutor already knew the facts
of the case as he previously handled it when he was still a City Prosecutor. It
would be a violation of the due process of law if a person who previously handled
and promulgated the Preliminary Investigation would also be the one to handle it
as a Regional Prosecutor.

Hence, the Counsel is Correct in filing a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on

the ground that it violates Due Process of Law.

6
 4. As the legal consultant of the City Council of Davao City your legal opinion
was sought on the constitutionality of a proposed ordinance which makes
it “unlawful to lease any hotel or motel room for more than twice every 24
hours”. The proposed ordinance is intended to serve as an anti-crime
measure particularly against the problems of kidnapping, drug trafficking
and prostitution in the city. Some members of the Council questioned the
proposed ordinance as violative of due process of law. In your legal
opinion, will you support this view? Why or Why not? (10pts)

Yes. In my legal opinion I will support this view.

The ordinance of the City Council of Davao City is presumed valid. The
local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has, in effect, given notice that
the regulations are essential to the well-being of the people. There being a
presumption of validity, the necessity of evidence to rebut it is necessary unless
the ordinance is void on its face. No such factual foundation has been laid in the
case and the ordinance is not void on its face. The challenged ordinance was
precisely enacted as a measure against certain practices harmful to public morals.
It proposed to check the alarming increase in the rate of kidnapping, drug-
trafficking, and prostitution in Davao City. Precisely, the proposed ordinance which
makes it “unlawful to lease any hotel or motel room for more than twice every 24
hours” was intended to curb the opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to
which such premises could be, and are being devoted. The purpose of the
enactment of this ordinance is to protect the interest of social welfare and public
security, thus the reason why I support this view.
Hence, in my legal opinion, I will support the proposed ordinance which
makes it “unlawful to lease any hotel or motel room for more than twice every 24
hours”.

5. “X” was charged of Murder in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The
accused filed a Petition for Bail assailing that the evidence of guilt against
him is not strong. The court, finding the Petition to be meritorious,
forthwith granted the Petition for Bail.

The Prosecutor, aggrieved by the immediate grant of the Petition

for Bail, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the forthwith grant
of bail to the accused violated the State’s right to due process of law. If
you were the Judge, will you accede and grant the Motion? Why or Why
not? Explain your answer. (10pts)

Yes. If I were the Judge, I will accede and grant the Motion.
Rule 114, Section 7 on the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that no
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. In this case, the
evidence of guilt is not strong which was the reason why the court granted the
Petition for Bail. However, the Judge committed an abuse of discretion in doing so
because the right to due process of the State was violated. The Prosecutor was
not given a chance to present evidence in behalf of the State to make such
evidence of guilt strong. Due process of law contemplates notice and opportunity
to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or property. This
was not evident in this case because the judge immediately granted the Petition
for Bail without affording the State through the Prosecutor, the right to controvert
by proof every material fact which bears on the question in the matter involved.
Hence, if I were the judge, I will accede and grant the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Prosecutor arguing that the forthwith grant of bail to the
accused violated the State’s right to due process of law.

7
-END-