Finals-Reviewer CONSTI 2
Finals-Reviewer CONSTI 2
Section 2. The right of the people to be secured 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 3.
1.
2.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Section 12.
1.
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
2
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2.
3.
4.
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 18.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The
right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
1.
2.
Section 19.
Section 14.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
3
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that
he understood the same;
8.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
1.
9.
2.
He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
3.
He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to
remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may
have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
4.
5.
That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
6.
The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio,
letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel,
or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may
be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
4
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
2.
3.
The other story is a wife who requested the password of his husbands
email from a certain email provided then she discovered that someone
owes his husband a sum of money in the amount of 3M.
6
(7) The period for which the information will be stored; and
(d) Dispute the inaccuracy or error in the personal information and have
the personal information controller correct it immediately and
accordingly, unless the request is vexatious or otherwise
unreasonable. If the personal information have been corrected, the
personal information controller shall ensure the accessibility of both
the new and the retracted information and the simultaneous receipt of
the new and the retracted information by recipients thereof: Provided,
That the third parties who have previously received such processed
personal information shall he informed of its inaccuracy and its
rectification upon reasonable request of the data subject;
7
(3) freedom of access to information; and
(4) freedom of circulation.
2.
3.
8
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceable to assemble to petition
the government for redress of grievances
The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may
not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or
authorization from the government authorities. However, the
right must be exercised in such a way as will not prejudice the
public welfare.
1. PB 880 (The Public Assembly Act of 1985)
The provisions of PB 880 are not an absolute ban of public assemblies but
a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
assemblies. The Court referred to it as a content-neutral regulation for it
only regulates the time, place and manner of assembly.
Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be
held in:
a. A private place;
b.The campus of a government-owned or operated educational institution;
c. A freedom park.
In BAYAN et al. vs. ERMITA, B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public
assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and
manner of the assemblies and not the reason for conducting such.
In RE: petition to ANNUL EN BANC RESOLUTION A.M. NO. 98-7-02SC RICARDO VALMONTES and UNION OF LAWYERS and
ADVOCATES for TRANSPARENCY in GOVERNMENT (ULAT) July 7,
1998, to insulate the judiciary from mob pressure, friendly or otherwise,
and isolate it from public hysteria, this Court merely moved away the
situs of mass actions within a 200-meter radius from every courthouse.
On the other hand, the resolution of this Court regulating demonstrations
Non-establishment clause.
9
educational institutions shall be owned by Filipinos except those
established by religious groups and mission boards (e.g. UST).
NOTE: if land is NOT actually, directly or exclusive used by the
Religious Sect, it is TAXABLE. REMEMBER THE BUMABAHA
NG BEER SA BASTE EXAMPLE!
In the case of IMBONG VS. OCHOA, the RH Law mandates mandates
State-sponsored procurement of contraceptive but the SC held that this
does not violate the non-establishment clause because this is part of the
States population control program even if the promotion of contraceptive
use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
However, the provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity specialty
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and
health care service providers to refer patients to other providers and
penalizing them if they fail to do so (Sections 7 and 23(a)(3)) as well
as compelling
them
to
disseminate
information
and
perform
RH procedures under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in
relation to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of religion.
While penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance to it,
a constitutionally-protected right must prevail over the effective
implementation of the law. (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
Requiring would-be spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, family
planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for the
issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of police power by
the government (Section 15). The law does not even mandate the type of
family planning methods to be included in the seminar. Those who attend
the seminar are free to accept or reject information they receive and they
retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without the
intervention of the State. (CONSTITUTIONAL)
1. TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHERE THERE IS VIOLATION (this
was from the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman which allowed the
state to reimburse predominantly Catholic schools for
teaching secular subjects with secular materials paid by tax
payers)
Lemon Test (if all or any these criteria are affirmed, the law in question
must be deemed unconstitutional:
a. The Statute must have a secular legislative purpose
b. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor
inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
c. The statute must not result in an excessive government
entaglement with religious affair (also known as the Entaglement
Prong)
Yes, as held in the case of AUSTRIA vs. NLRC, the State can
intervene on the secular affairs of a religious organization, specifically
the labor rights of Austria as an employee of the Seventh Day
Adventist (ISSUE HERE IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYEE).
Ecclesiastical Affiar
An ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church
and its members and relates to matters of faith, religious doctrines,
worship and governance of the congregation (e.g excommunication,
ordinations of ministers)
Secular Affairs
Non religious affairs of a church.
10
In
the
case
of
EBRALINAG
vs.
THE
DIVISION
OF
SUPRERINDTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU, the SC held forcing the
children to salute the flag violates their right to religion and will not foster
love & respect for the country and the authorities. Expelling them on the
basis of such conduct will likewise violate their right to receive education.
When general laws conflict w/ scruples of conscience, exceptions may be
granted, unless some compelling state interest gets involved.
In, INC vs. CA, the SC ruled that respondent board cannot censor the
speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other
religions, it says the remedy against bad theology is a better theology.
Given that a free exercise claim could lead to three different results, the
question now remains as to how the Court should determine which action
to take. In this regard, it is the strict scrutiny-compelling state interest test
which
is
most
in
line
with
the benevolent
neutralityaccommodation approach
1.
2.
a. standards
i. Strict Neutrality Theory
Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action.
ii. Benevolent Neutrality Theory
The theory believes that with respect to these governmental
actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
promote the governments favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance. The purpose of accommodations is to remove a
burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a persons or institutions
religion.
b. tests
11
1. Clear and Present Danger Test (use in freedom of
expression)
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right to
prevent.
2. Compelling State interest Test
The application of the compelling state interest test could result to
three
situations
of
accommodation:
First,
mandatory
accommodation would result if the Court finds that
accommodation is required by the Free Exercise Clause. Second, if
the Court finds that the State may, but is not required to,
accommodate religious interests, permissive accommodation
results. Finally, if the Court finds that that establishment concerns
prevail over potential accommodation interests, then it must rule
that the accommodation is prohibited.
3. Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the
right to refuse to perform military service"[1] on the grounds of
freedom of thought, conscience, disability or religion. [2] In
general, conscientious objector status is considered only in the
context of military conscription and is not applicable to volunteer
military forces.
NOTE: The Conscientious Objector Test is not applicable in the
Philippines because of Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution
(Posse Comitatus Rule) which calls upon people to serve in the
military to render either military or civil service during war.
Q. What is the Compelling State Interest test?
A. It is the test used to determine if the interests of the State are
compelling enough to justify infringement of religious freedom. It
involves a three-step process:
i.
Has the statute or government action created a burden
on the free exercise of religion? Courts often look into the
sincerity of the religious belief, but without inquiring into the
truth of the belief since the free exercise clause prohibits
inquiring about its truth.
ii.
Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to
justify this infringement of religious liberty? In this step,
the government has the right to establish that its purposes
are legitimate for the State and that they are compelling.
iii.
Has the State in achieving its legitimate purposes used
the least intrusive means possible so that the free
exercise in not infringed any more than necessary to
12
Statutory limitations of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL (OCA-OAS vs
HEUSDENS)
(1) Human Security Act of 2010 (persons charged with crime of terrorism),
(2) Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (refuse issuance, restrict use of, or
withdraw a passport),
(3) Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (manage migration and curb
trafficking in persons,
(4) Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (refuse to issue
deployment permit),
(5) RA 9262 (TPO), (6) Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 (restricting the
adoptees right to travel to protect her)
(6) Inter-Country adoption Act of 1995
(7) Destierro
In the case of GUDANI vs. SENGA, there is a restriction on the their right
to travel
because of the commander-in-chief clause, in which the
President as the commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines,
has absolute authority over the members of the armed forces and this
authority includes he ability to restrict the travel, movement and speech
of military officers.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Scope of the RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Q What is the difference between the lending of private banks
and the lending of government financial institutions?
A The nature of the funds being lent by GFIs assumes a public character,
hence it is subject to the right of the people to information while funds
lend by private banks is not (VALMONTE vs BELMONTE)
Q Whether the Constitutional right to information includes official
information
on on-going
negotiations
before
a
final
agreement?
A Yes, as held in the case of Chavez vs. PEA and AMARI, the right to
information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never
exercise the right if no contract is consummated, or if one is
consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.
However, the right only affords access to records, documents and
papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them at his
2.
3.
4.
Q
13
decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten
wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite
propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or
inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage
when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or
are in the "exploratory" stage.
TANADA vs TUVERA, publication must be in full or no publication at all
since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the laws.
NOTES:
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
Q Is being a communist or socialist illegal or punishable?
A NO because under our laws, the freedom to believe is absolute but if
you act on those beliefs and there is a law prohibiting such actions, then
you will be prosecuted in accordance with the law.
In the case of BEL AIR VILLAGE ASSN, INC vs. DIONISIO, there is an
annotation in the TCT, hence the spouses became an automatic member
of the association.
In the EDILLON case, the court held that the Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not
the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
election as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is
the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the
States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal
services may require that the cost of the regulatory program the
lawyers.
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
14
As held in the case of ORTIGAS and CO. vs. FEATI BANK and TRUST
CO, while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the
rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate
exercise of police power.
This right is available only to natural person, as held in the RE: QUERY
OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI, RE: EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND
FILING FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION, INC. The Good
Shepherd is a judicial person and cannot be accorded the exemption from
legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigant.
RA 999 FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010 Section 5
The law granting lawyers up to 10 percent deduction from their
annual taxable income to encourage them to render free legal
services, provided that the actual free legal services herein
contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum 60 hours
mandatory legal aid services rendered
RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
15
investigation for the commission of crime. Taking of urine sample
is a mechanical act, hence, he cannot invoke the right to counsel
6. MUG SHOTS
7. SHOW UPS
8. FITTING OF SHORTS
ii.
iii.
REMEMBER THIS!
1. Is the person under custodial investigation? If not, then
the right to counsel is not applicable. Miranda rights need
not be cited.
2. If it applies, was it followed? Was there a counsel given to
him?
3. If not, is there a justification not to follow it?
RIGHTS INCLUDED
In PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY, the SC laid down the guidelines and duties of
arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating officers or his companions
(refer to the UPDATED MIRANDA RIGHTS)
KINDS OF INVOLUNTARY OR COERCED CONFESSIONS
1. Those which are the product of 3rd degree method such as
torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with
in paragraph 2 of Section 12; and
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warning
In the case of PEOPLE vs. OBRERO, the SC stressed that the
Constitution requires that the counsel be independent.
Hence the
confession made by the suspect is inadmissible because the same was
made to a police officer who was part of the arresting team, though a
competent lawyer, he is however not independent. It is seriously doubted
whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without
running into conflict of interest.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
In GAMBOA vs. CRUZ, the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel
attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the respondent. At that point, the person being
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice
16
of extorting false or coerced admissions from the lips of the person
undergoing investigation.
PEOPLE vs VIDUYA, a fiscal/prosecutor cannot act as a defense counsel
even during custodial investigation.
ADMISSIBILITY
1. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
PEOPLE vs JARA, the SC ruled that in order for extrajudicial confession
to be valid, it should be voluntarily given and the burden of proving that
there was valid waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail over the
presumption of innocence.
In PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS, the right under Section 12, Article III is
personal in nature, hence can only be invoked by the confessant himself.
2. Confession given to Media
In PEOPLE vs. ENDINO, the Supreme Court ruled that the admission of
the videotaped confession is proper. The interview was recorded on video
and it showed accused unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly
in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of
custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media
men in an attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.
There was no showing that the interview was coerced or against his will.
However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a
medium for admitting ones guilt, courts are reminded that extreme
caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions.
3. Confession given to a Municipal Mayor
In PEOPLE vs. ANDAN, the Supreme Court held that the voluntary but
uncounselled confession of the accused to the Mayor and to the media
was admissible in evidence. In this case, it was noted that it was the
accused who freely, spontaneously and voluntarily sought the Mayor for a
private meeting, and the Mayor did not know that the accused was going
to confess his guilt. Accused talked with the Mayor as a confidant, not as a
law enforcement officer. The confession made by the accused to the news
reporters was likewise free of undue influence from the police authorities.
The news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed the
accused; they were not acting under the direction and control of the
police. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply
to the spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the
authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally
admitted having committed the crime.
4. Signing of Acknowledgment receipt
PEOPLE vs. CASIMIRO, the SC ruled that the acknowledgment receipt
could not be considered evidence against the accused-appellant because
it was signed by him without the assistance of counsel.
17
strong, hence, that person cannot avail the right to bail as a matter of
right.
Q When is bail DISCRETIONARY?
A After conviction before the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. However, if the RTC convicts
him of an offense punishable by more than 6 years, the court should
deny the bail when the following circumstances are present:
1. recidivist, quasi-redicivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed
the crime aggravated by the circumstances of reiteration;
2. escapee, evaded sentence or violated the conditions of his bail w/o
valid justification
3. that he committed an offense while under parole, probation, or
conditional pardon;
4. that he is flight risk
5. that there is an undue risk that he may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
EXTRADITION
is an international agreement whereby the contracting States
agree to surrender a person who might have committed or is
sentence of crime punishable under the domestic of law of the
requesting state.
GOVERNMENT OF THE USA vs PURGANAN, person subject of
extradition cannot invoke the right to bail as a matter of right except: (1)
when the person is not a flight risk and (2) for humanitarian reasons.
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
vs. OLALIA, in cases of extradition, an extraditee can invoke the right to
bail, provided
(1) the extraditee is not a flight risk; or (2) for
humanitarian considerations.
Q What is the quantum of proof in granting bail in extradition
cases?
A The quantum of proof is clear and convincing evidence (meaning, lower
than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
evidence)
Quantum of Proofs
1. proof beyond reasonable doubt criminal cases
2. preponderance of evidence civil cases
3. substantial evidence administrative cases
4. clear and convincing evidence extradition cases
DEPORTATION
Q Can the court issue an order to grant a bail in favor of person
subject of deportation?
A Yes, as held in the case of GOVERNMENT OF HK SAR vs. OLALIA,
because it is an international practice. Although such is not binding
because it is only an obiter dictum (opinion given which is not an issue
of a particular case).
GO vs. RAMOS, the Court ruled that it cannot grant bail because a
deportation case is not a criminal offense. The BI however, based on the
law that created such Board can grant bail.
NOTE: In deportation cases, granting of bail is base on a law and not the
Constitution because the latter only provides bail in criminal cases.
MILITARY
COMMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA, a military convicted by the general
court martial is not entitled to bail because it is not an ordinary criminal
proceeding and there is no provision in the Articles of War granting them
the right to bail. Their remedy is to invoke speedy trial.
LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Imposed on offenses punishable by
special laws
Does not carry accessory penalty
Duration is indefinite