2017 Bar Updates in Constitutional Law by Atty. Rene B. Gorospe

NOTES, UPDATES AND TEASERSCONSTITUTIONAL LAW* Jurists Review Center Bar Review 2017 RENE B. GOROSPE OUTLINE A. The Fundamental Powers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Bill of Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Due Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. Equal Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 E. Searches and Seizures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 F. Privacy of Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 G. Freedom of Expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 H. Freedom of Religion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 I. Freedom of Movement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 J. Right to Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 K. Right of Association.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 L. Eminent Domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 M. Contract Clause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 N. Poverty and Legal Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 O. Rights of Suspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 P. Rights of the Accused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Q. Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Kalikasan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 R. Speedy Disposition of Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 S. Self-Incrimination Clause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 T. Excessive Fines, Cruel andJInhuman REVIEW C.ENTER URISTSPunishments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 U. Double Jeopardy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 BAttainder. V. Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of AR REVIEW . . . . .2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 * Caveat: While most of the materials here are taken from cases, caution should be exercised in looking at the notes as some are R B G personal views designed to make the principle or rule discussed more interesting through side comments, musings and other asides. Utmost discernment, discipline and discretion are thus advised to avoid any misunderstandings. Attempt had been made to carefully proofread everything but it almost always happens that despite best efforts errors will still crop up. Well, as Justice Kennedy observed in his dissenting opinion in Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), at 568: “We all tend toward A Library myopia when looking for our Of Liberties own errors. Every vis-à-vis lawyer and every An examples judge can recite Arsenal Of Arms of documents that they wrote, checked, and doublechecked, but that still contained glaring errors.” Murphy’s Law, anyone? R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 2 of 99 T hese notes on Constitutional Law are to be taken as a quick reference to general ideas and fairly recent decisions which light up and enliven the study of the subject. They presuppose that one has at least done his or her homework through the years and these are just reminders of what were, ticklers of recent application of rules, principles and doctrines, and an invitation to an exploration of what may lie beyond. The study of law is best had if enjoyed. These notes are intended to be both informative and entertaining. Reviewees are also entitled to have fun even while preparing to take on the Bar exams.1 As had been writ: “A judicial decision does not have to be a bore.”2 Neither must a Bar review material be. It need not be a bland presentation of what has been. It might as well pick brains and prick some civic conscience in preparation for eventual practice as a responsible and respectable particle of sovereignty. So, here’s to humoring the Bar exams. There’s nothing as unnerving as approaching a problem from a perspective of trepidation. March on with confidence, head up high, a smile on your face and faith in yourself. The Bar exercise is just a good opportunity to prove and improve yourself. It is not an adversary but an ally, and even if it were, it is one that you can persuade and convince to become a lifelong friend. THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS Governance is the art and science of carefully balancing competing needs, concerns, wants, desiderata and values of society, all demanding acceptance and preeminence. Insofar as the government and the people are concerned, their interests may every now and then clash or compete for ascendancy, for which a careful weighing of various considerations has to be done to ensure that the demands of authority do not lead to slavery and the claims of liberty do not end up in anarchy.3 More recently, the Court also framed it in this wise: “[H]ow does the Charter of a republican and democratic State achieve a viable and acceptable balance between liberty, without which, government becomes an unbearable tyrant, and authority, without which, society becomes an intolerable and dangerous arrangement?”4 And, for the present, such balancing may assume greater importance as the government tries to come up with a society free of drug-related crimes while still respecting basic human rights. On the side of authority, you have the inherent and fundamental powers of the government – police power, eminent domain, and taxation – powers by which its goals may be achieved and its will enforced and implemented. On the other end, you have the guarantees and safeguards found in the Bill of Rights. And, in this regard the Court has held that “[i]n the complex but exquisite scheme laid down by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights occupies a position of primacy, way above the articles on governmental power.”5 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER 1 In regard to the need for an examination in the first place, take note of what the Court said in Antolin v. Domondon, 623 SCRA B R 2017 163 (2010): “Examinations have a two-fold purpose. First, they are summative; examinations are intended to assess and record what and how much the students have learned. Second, andAR perhapsEVIEW more importantly, they are formative; examinations are intended to be part and parcel of the learning process. In a perfect system, they are tools for learning.” 2 Francisco v. Permskul, 173 SCRA 324 (1989) 3 4 R See Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940) B GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 734 SCRA 88 (2014) G 5 People v. Rapeza, 520 SCRA 596 (2007), penned by Justice Tinga. This is a reiteration of his earlier ponencia in People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003), whereA Library it was held:Of “TheLiberties Bill of Rights vis-à-vis is the bedrockAn Arsenalgovernment. of constitutional Of Arms If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 3 of 99 In this interplay between power and authority, on one hand, and liberty and freedom, on the other, note must be taken of the fact that just like anything else, values, concepts and ideas change through time. What may have been recognized as outside the domain of State regulation in the past would no longer be so immune from governmental interference in later years.6 As was said in one case, “What was ‘robbery’ in 1874 is now called ‘social justice.’”7 Or, as stated in elsewhere, “Social justice is not based on rigid formulas set in stone. It has to allow for changing times and circumstances.”8 A. THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS These fundamental powers are inherent in the national government, exercised by the legislature, and are only bestowed upon others, like the local government units, as a result of delegation. In the exercise of police power, there must be compliance with the requirements of legitimate ends being accomplished through legitimate means.9 This power is the most pervasive, illimitable and plenary, affecting liberty and property of individuals for the advancement of the common good. It essentially embodies the right of the State to enact laws for the purpose of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating liberty and the use of property. Its also been said that “the test of constitutionality of a police power measure is limited to an inquiry on whether the restriction imposed on constitutional rights is reasonable, and not whether it imposes a restriction on those rights,” and that it “does not rely upon the existence of definitive studies to support its use. Indeed, no requirement exists that the exercise of police power must first be conclusively justified by research. . . . Scientific certainty and conclusiveness, though desirable, may not be demanded in every situation. Otherwise, no government will be able to act in situations demanding the exercise of its residual powers because it will be tied up conducting studies.”10 As for the power of condemnation, the Constitution already provides the allowable standards for its exercise – public use and just compensation.11 But then note must be taken of the expanded meaning of the term “public use” – “the concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the idea that ‘public use’ is strictly limited to clear cases of ‘use by the public’ has been discarded.”12 And case law has recently come up with newer rules relative to the exercise of this power. Taxation, of course, must not be exercised in an unreasonable, oppressive and confiscatory manner.13 Or, in the language of Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 600 SCRA 413 (2009), “[l]egitimate enterprises enjoy the constitutional protection not to be taxed out of existence.” Also, it must not be forgotten that the exercise of the power of taxation constitutes a deprivation of property under the due process clause, and the taxpayer’s right to due process is violated JURISTS REVIEW CENTER contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles on governmental power.” 6 BAR REVIEW 2017 See People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440 (1924) 7 Bengzon v. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 (1992) 8 Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 573 (2004) R B G 9 Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659 (1987) 10 Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006) 11 Article III, §9 Heirs of Juancho A Library v. Reyes,Of 125Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 12 Ardona SCRA 220 (1983) 13 See Reyes v. Almanzor, 196 SCRA 322 (1991) 2017 . SCRA 169 (2006) 16 Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. the Court stated: “It also appears that requiring the exposure of their property via a see-thru fence is violative of their right to privacy. “It may even be argued that such exposed premises could entice and tempt would-be criminals to the property. on residual powers of local government units. “the State may not.” In addition. of the Local Government Code already explicitly and clearly cover amusement tax and respondent Cebu City must exercise its authority to impose amusement tax within the limitations and guidelines as set forth in said statutory provisions. or if they are higher. aside from requiring a 6-meter setback for parking purposes.. The right to privacy has long been considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. National Internal Revenue Code. Section 140. Bayan Telecommunications. than a tall solid concrete wall.” Hence. or charges are not otherwise specifically enumerated in the Local Government Code. St. In the present case. in regard to the delegation by the Constitution itself of the taxing power to the Local Government Units.15 And. In fact. That regulation meant that the school’s concrete perimeter fence built long time ago would have to be dismantled to make way for the set-back. The ordinance is oppressive of private rights. in relation to Section 131(c). Fernando v.14 Further.”16 1. considering that it would no longer be for the exclusive use of the respondents as it would also be available for use by theBgeneral AR REVIEW public.” JURISTS REVIEW CENTER How about the set-back requirement? The Court saw through the real intent of the regulation – taking without compensation. Congress is not stripped of its power to exempt certain entities from local taxation. Inc. 781 SCRA 335 (2016) . infringe on private rights solely for the sake of the aesthetic appearance of the community.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Similarly. City of Cebu. it R B G is usually in cases where the title remains with the private owner that inquiry should be made to determine 14 Yamane v. the Court has held that “[a] local government unit may exercise its residual power to tax when there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by statute. It did not see how an 80% see-thru fence could provide better protection and a higher level of security. The right to privacy is essentially the right to be let alone. considering that the residence of the Benedictine nuns is also located within the property. as governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of its citizens. It also appears that the respondents’ concrete wall has served as more than sufficient protection over the last 40 years.” But would not the requirement also contribute to the aesthetic sense? Well. It is a settled rule that neither the acquisition of title nor the total destruction of value is essential to taking. the Court cannot perceive how a see-thru fence will foster ‘neighborliness’ between members of a community. which necessarily includes their right to decide how best to protect their property. a clear encroachment on their right to property. as amended. The Court held both requirements are beyond the valid exercise of police power. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation. “[T]he real intent of the setback requirement was to make the parking space free for use by the public. Scholastica’s College. thus. 693 SCRA 141 (2013) A local ordinance mandated that fences should only be one-meter high. as well as to comply with the height or see-thru requirement. The petitioners cannot justify the setback by arguing that the ownership of the property will continue to remain with the respondents. or serve as a more satisfactory criminal deterrent. or other applicable laws. under the guise of police power. “[c]ompelling the respondents to construct their fence in accordance with the assailed ordinance is. 474 SCRA 258 (2005) AQuezon Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An 484Arsenal Of Arms 15 City Government of City v. . Updates and Teasers Page 4 of 99 when arbitrary or oppressive methods are used in assessing and collecting taxes. and that a see-thru fence would be easier to bypass and breach. . then they must be 80% see-thru. fees. or when such taxes. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 5 of 99 whether the impairment of a property is merely regulated or amounts to a compensable taking.” In this case, the implementation of the setback requirement would be tantamount to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, in contravention to the Constitution. 2. Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. Toll Regulatory Board, 742 SCRA 395 (2014) In this case, the Court held that in a valid exercise of police power, there is no taking that has to be compensated. Here, the owner of a piece of land along the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) contended that the presence of an access fence deprived it of the enjoyment and possession of its property since it was barred from ingress into or egress from the NLEX. Not so, the Court said. The access fence is part of the safety measures in place necessary for the high-speed highway. “It is relevant to mention that the access fence was put up pursuant to Republic Act No. 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act), the enforcement of which was under the authority of the DOTC. . . . [T]he access fence was a reasonable restriction on the petitioner’s property given the location thereof at the right side of Sta. Rita Exit of the NLEX. Although some adjacent properties were accorded unrestricted access to the expressway, there was a valid and reasonable classification for doing so because their owners provided ancillary services to motorists using the NLEX, like gasoline service stations and food stores. A classification based on practical convenience and common knowledge is not unconstitutional simply because it may lack purely theoretical or scientific uniformity. Lastly, the limited access imposed on the petitioner’s property did not partake of a compensable taking due to the exercise of the power of eminent domain. There is no question that the property was not taken and devoted for public use. Instead, the property was subjected to a certain restraint, i.e., the access fence, in order to secure the general safety and welfare of the motorists using the NLEX.” 3. Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, 711 SCRA 302, 366 (2013) With regard to the effect of the senior citizen’s discount and the element of taking that is involved in it, the following passage is enlightening. “It should be noted though that potential profits or income/gross sales are relevant in police power and eminent domain analyses because they may, in appropriate cases, serve as an indicia when a regulation has gone ‘too far’ as to amount to a ‘taking’ under the power of eminent domain. When the deprivation or reduction of profits or income/gross sales is shown to be unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory, then the challenged governmental regulation may be nullified for being a ‘taking’ under the power of eminent domain. In such a case, it is not profits or income/gross sales which are actually taken and appropriated for public use. Rather, when the regulation causes an establishment to incur losses in an unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory manner, JURISTS what is actually taken is capital and the rightRofEVIEW CENTER the business establishment to a reasonable return on investment. If the business losses are not halted because of the continued operation of the regulation, this eventually leads to the destruction of the business and the total loss of the capital invested therein.” Here, the petitioners failed to proveBthat REVIEW ARthe regulation2017 is unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory. 4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., 729 SCRA 113 (2014) R B G The following lines from this case provide comfort and a reassurance that the exercise of the taxing power could not be allowed to A Library Ofrun berserk vis-à-vis Liberties and get wild: “This Court An Arsenal cannot countenance an Of Arms assessment based on estimates that appear to have been arbitrarily or capriciously arrived at. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 6 of 99 Although taxes are the lifeblood of the government, their assessment and collection ‘should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself.’” The Court added: “[W]e ought to reiterate our earlier teachings that ‘in balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen’s right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution.’ Thus, while ‘taxes are the lifeblood of the government,’ the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude. Even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. After all, the statute of limitations on the collection of taxes was also enacted to benefit and protect the taxpayers.” B. BILL OF RIGHTS Taking up the cudgels for liberty are the guarantees contained basically in the Bill of Rights. As the Court observed in People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95 (2000), the Bill of Rights is the mechanism for the delicate balance between governmental power and individual liberty, without which man is stripped of his humanity and society becomes a putrid dump of lost lives. “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”17 The bundle of freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is essentially directed against the State and its agencies and instrumentalities only. It could not be invoked against private persons.18 In Atienza, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 612 SCRA 761 (2010), the Court held that the requirements of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of political parties. The due process standards set in Ang Tibay cover only administrative bodies created by the state and through which certain governmental acts or functions are performed. “The discipline of members by a political party does not involve the right to life, liberty or property within the meaning of the due process clause. An individual has no vested right, as against the state, to be accepted or to prevent his removal by a political party. The only rights, if any, that party members may have, in relation to other party members, correspond to those that may have been freely agreed upon among themselves through their charter, which is a contract among the party members. Members whose rights under their charter may have been violated have recourse to courts of law for the enforcement of those rights, but not as a due process issue against the government or any of its JURISTS agencies.”RIn Sesbreño EVIEW Cv.ENTER Court of Appeals, 720 SCRA 57 (2014), the presence of a policeman in an inspection of the electric meter of a residence for possible meter tampering was not considered as a situation subject to the provision of the Bill of Rights on searches and BAR R seizures. The participation of the policeman, notEVIEW 2017of the private electric company, was to an employee render police assistance to ensure the personal security of private entity’s employees during the inspection, rendering him a necessary part of the team as an authorized representative. R B G Nevertheless, even as it is true that “[t]he Constitution cannot control [private] prejudices, but neither ABoard Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 17 West Virginia State of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943) 18 See People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991) and Serrano v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 (2000). R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 7 of 99 can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”19 C. DUE PROCESS Due process might as well provide a sort of a “Swiss Army Knife” guarantee given its adaptability and flexibility as a legal argument. The Due Process Clause is a handy legal tool for the protection of the valued rights to life, liberty and property, and all other freedoms and liberties that inhere or adhere to them. It provides both a safeguard to ensure fairness in the proceedings that may be taken towards the deprivation of any liberty or property interests, or the impairment of any other right or freedom, as well as the guarantee of reasonableness in the enactment of laws and other regulations which impact life, liberty and property. Person includes both citizens and aliens, natural and juridical. It may not encompass, however, the foetus, or the unborn child20 though the 1987 Constitution has thought it advisable to provide protection for the unborn together with its mother.21 “The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was so clear that even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers was captured in the record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.”22 Even the decedent is entitled to some form of protection in so far as his or her estate is concerned.23 As for life, liberty and property, while all of these are protected, the extent of the care and importance they get are not the same – some things are simply worth much more than others. Thus, when property rights come into conflict with human rights, the former must give way to the latter.24 “[W]hen freedom of the mind is imperiled by law, it is freedom that commands a momentum of respect; when property is imperiled, it is the lawmakers’ judgment that commands respect. This dual standard may not precisely reverse the presumption of constitutionality in civil liberties cases, but obviously it does set up a hierarchy of values within the due process clause.”25 And, the Court also stated that, “based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right to life enjoys precedence over the right to property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not. When the state or LGU’s exercise of police power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the former should prevail.”26 As between right not to join labor organizations, the Court had this to say: “In the hierarchy of constitutional values, this Court has repeatedly held that the right to abstain from joining a labor organization is subordinate to the policy of 19 Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 529 (1984) 20 21 J See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)URISTS REVIEW CENTER The State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Art. II, §12) 22 Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 SCRA 146 (2014) 23 B The Court observed in Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, R AR 665 EVIEW 2017 SCRA 367(2012): “Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of Ferdinand E. Marcos, it is imperative therefore that the estate be duly represented. The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. The deceased R B G litigant is himself protected, as he continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.” 24 PBM Employees Org. v. PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 184 (1973) A Library of Finance,Of 235 Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 25 Tolentino v. Secretary SCRA 630 (1994) 26 Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., 545 SCRA 92 (2008) The intermediate scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on gender or illegitimacy of children. See ErwinOf Liberties Chemerinsky..30 This simply means that “if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person. “[t]he law recognizes that the enjoyment of a private reputation is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life. . Under strict scrutiny. to be valid the classification must promote a compelling state interest. In the matter of statutes that deprive a person of physical liberty. 645-646. Mendoza’s discussions in Estrada v.” Thus. Bon. 23: 2017 “The rational basis test is the minimum level of scrutiny that all government actions challenged under the equal protection clause must meet. courtesy of members other than the ones enjoying 27 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. 369 SCRA 394 (2001) B R ARfind EVIEW In League of Cities. the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting. Strict scrutiny is a judicial standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. or those instruments of measurement for validity of rules and regulations. 42 [1912])] And. there is also a hierarchy of evidentiary values which calls into play the guarantee of the Due Process Clause if the inappropriate quantum of proof is demanded by the adjudicator in a particular proceeding. Determining whether there is sufficient justification for the government’s action depends very much on the level of scrutiny used. the substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives are considered. which is the easiest test to satisfy since the classification must only show a rational relationship to a A Library legitimate government purpose. the focus is on the presence of compelling. Sandiganbayan. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.” 32 People v. 22 Phil. These would be the deferential or rational relationship test.” why not try to reminisce about the law school years where classroom sessions were either a bore. 455 SCRA 308 (2005) 31 See Justice V.”32 If one were to have a better appreciation of these “standards of review. . 506 SCRA 168 (2006) . Under intermediate review.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. we also this in n. the permissible scope of regulatory measures is wider. . 782 SCRA 117 (2016) 29 30 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER Manalo v. the intermediate or heightened scrutiny. Roldan-Confesor. Laguio. Updates and Teasers Page 8 of 99 encouraging unionism as an instrument of social justice. the demand for a clearer standard in sentencing is even more exacting. Arsenal Principles Of Arms and Policies. moments of trepidation and incessant prayers or occasions for hilarious incidents. vis-à-vis Constitutional An Law. and finally. but where the liberty curtailed affects what are at the most rights of property. laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. without courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved. strict scrutiny. R B G Under the strict scrutiny test. gender.”28 (Citing Worcester v.29 Relevant to the chore of weighing conflicting values are so-called standards of review or levels of scrutiny. adjustable and flexible depending on the interests and values involved. The strict scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on race or those which result in violations of fundamental rights.”27 Also. under deferential review. Ocampo. or race and facial challenges are allowed for this purpose. Laws not subject to the strict or intermediate scrutiny test are evaluated under the rational basis test.31 The Court has also declared: “[C]onstitutional due process demands a higher degree of clarity when infringements on life or liberty are intended. pp. if there is a hierarchy of rights. Under the intermediate scrutiny test. 2nd Edition. Jr. 215 SCRA 808 (1992) City of Manila v. 627 SCRA 590 (2010) 28 Ty-Delgado v.V. the classification must be substantially related to an important government objective. 571 SCRA 263 (2008). liberty or property. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank. It is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech. rather than substantial governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. while merely in the nature of a privilege. National Power Corporation. Inc. he acquires a vested right to benefits that is protected by the due process clause. especially if abuse attended their withdrawal or discontinuance. 541 SCRA 444 [2007]) A Library Ofv.”39 Sight must not be lost of the fact that the Clause has two faces or components – the procedural and the substantive. Indeed to perpetuate such distinction would leave the citizens at the mercy of State functionaries.” (Ledesma v. recipients of privileges or largesses from the government could be said to have no property rights because they possessed no traditionally recognized proprietary interest therein.37 The mere fact that one’s claim to something might be based on a privilege and not a right is not determinative of the appropriateness of invoking due process – reliance on the “right privilege dichotomy” has long been denigrated by leading lights in administrative law as “too crude for consistent application” by courts. . 378 SCRA 82 (2002) . liberty or freedom is to be impaired or otherwise taken away while the latter goes to the very power of the authorities to come up with rules and other strictures under which man may live and enjoy the blessings of a civilized society. 173 SCRA 409 (1989) 37 “[P]ilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. 136 SCRA 536 (1985) and Deloso v. Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 38 Mabuhay Textile Mills Corporation Ongpin. are not also insulated from the checking effects of the Due Process Clause.38 “Under traditional form of property ownership. and one cannot insist on staying in office if the office has already been abolished. The former is essentially directed at officers who adjudicate while the latter is directed basically at those who enact the laws. 675 SCRA 642 (2012) BAR REVIEW 2017 See Layno. subject to the restrictions imposed by the ATO and its revocation if warranted. it is but a mere privilege. The first refers to the guarantees of fairness in the process of determining whether a right. it has been held that an “airman license cannot be considered a property right. Then again. aside from those normally owned. Updates and Teasers Page 9 of 99 the fun? A student’s preparations for each subject then were generally dictated by the kind of professors he or she might have had – whether members of terrorist cells or the soft and kind apostles of non- violence and charity. 476 SCRA 305 (2005) 34 Betoy v. Philippine Ports Authority. Sandiganbayan.33 Likewise. v. where an employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements under the law. . United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines. As for property. it must also be understood that a final judgment vests in the prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process clause of the Constitution – it is a vested interest which the government should recognize and protect. 141 SCRA 437 (1986) 39 Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation v. . the same may be lost if such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence. including the price that he has to pay to stay. 658 SCRA 420 (2011) 35 36 Quiao v. Unduly long preventive suspension could also be assailed on due process grounds. such as in legal separation where the guilty spouse may end forfeiting his share in the conjugal property. it must not also be forgotten that procedural due process operates differently under 33 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER Manotok Realty.36 Licenses. Quiao. while one may not be deprived of what is his vested right. and of which the individual could not be deprived arbitrarily of without committing an act of injustice. But to the extent that one’s right to security of tenure may be impaired.” (Corona v. CLT Realty Development Corporation.35 Public office is not property. Sandiganbayan. But the right-privilege dichotomy came to an end when courts realized that individuals should not be subjected to the unfettered whims of government officials to withhold privileges previously given to them. and worse.34 And. to that extent may due process be called upon for assistance. 283 SCRA 31 [1997]) R B G On the other hand. Sr. threaten the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. Court of Appeals. v. Board of Directors.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Palanca. it was held that where a judge entertains an unorthodox belief system – such as believing in “psychic visions. when it is due. like notice and hearing. rather than look at the merits of his testimony.. 369 SCRA 394 (2001) . as stated in another case: “Procedural due process requires a determination of what process is due. the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons. specially so when acted upon by the judge. 290 SCRA 279 (1998) 44 R B G People v. Updates and Teasers Page 10 of 99 changing circumstances. would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge. v. 455 SCRA 308 (2005) 41 Secretary of Justice v. 486 SCRA 66 (2006).” On substantive due process. Such beliefs. Corpus-Cabochan. specifically Article III. would be Adecision meaningless if the ultimate LibrarywouldOf Liberties come from a partialvis-à-vis An (Rubin and biased judge.e. fair notice of what conduct to avoid. Sandiganbayan. Jr. every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Torres.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 46 Estrada v. the Bill of Rights. relevant here is the concept of the “void-for vagueness” doctrine.43 and so on. and of foreseeing the future because of his power of “psychic phenomenon” – the same indubitably shows his inability to function with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. “Classic procedural due process issues are concerned with what kind of notice and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a particular action. And. Court of Industrial Relations. And JURISTS REVIEW CENTER 40 City of Manila v. In such instance. The judiciary is certainly not the proper place for such a person to stay. i. especially the parties targeted by it.42 Those that satisfy the requirements of due process in the investigation of local appointive officials would not suffice for elective officials.” Arsenal Of Arms 702 SCRA 330 [2013]). 569 SCRA 194 (2008) 45 “It must be borne in mind that the inhibition of judges is rooted in the Constitution. Laguio. which requires that a hearing is conducted before an impartial and disinterested tribunal because unquestionably. Lantion. 702 SCRA 330 (2013).”41 What may be required for purposes of judicial proceedings would not be the same in administrative proceedings. like notice and hearing. 37 Phil. the Court pointed out: “It must be borne in mind that the inhibition of judges is rooted in the Constitution. Floro. It has also been held that where the trial court simply considered the person and past performance of the witness. the Bill of Rights. was a major error. Sanchez..”46 A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.” and in dwarfs. if fairness is to be had. not on the basis of any other extraneous consideration not before it. Banco Español-Filipino v. All the other elements of due process. which requires that a hearing is conducted before an impartial and disinterested tribunal because unquestionably. a violation of due process – a court must always decide on the basis of the evidence presented. 343 SCRA 377 (2000) 42 BAR Cf. and. and the degree of what is due. 635 (1940) 43 Joson v. All the other elements of due process. and in being able to write while on trance. specifically Article III. Jr. It is “most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute.”40 Or.44 Basic to the idea of procedural due process is the presence of an impartial magistrate or tribunal. 69 Phil. in Rubin v. that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. R EVIEW 921 (1918) 2017 and Ang Tibay v. Corpus-Cabochan. by itself. such act. every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. and decided on this basis that he was a credible witness. it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. are so at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a magistrate. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face.. of having been seen by several people in two places at the same time.45 In Office of the Court Administrator v. 51 In regard to criminal cases.. Nixon. Inc. 113 (1973) In Imbong v. 408 (2003). 683 (1974) 50 Tot v.S. Leatherman Tool Group. The fee should be just. Inc. for instance. by legal definition.S. Campbell. 358 (1970) 55 Procunier v. Glucksberg. 521 U. the Court has ruled. Updates and Teasers Page 11 of 99 what about the overbreadth doctrine? This doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. and. It was so clear that even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise.S. Wade. Cooper Industries. Martinez. Gore. United States.S.S. is that charged by a public official to accept a document for processing. fair.” The due process clause permits the courts to determine whether the regulation imposing such fees is reasonable and within the bounds of its rate-fixing authority and to strike it down when it arbitrarily infringes on a person’s right to property. 530 U. . it has also been invoked to justify the compelled production of relevant presidential materials as against a generalized assertion of executive privilege. Inc. 319 U. 494 SCRA 153 (2006) 57 Securities and Exchange Commission v.54 Court access by prisoners is also considered part of the guarantee. that inordinate reliance on technical rules of procedure may also offend the guarantee.49 So. Inc. 418 U. 559 (1996). due process is implicated in the determination of the voluntariness and admissibility of extrajudicial confessions.. In the United States.S. 702 (1997) United States v. Ochoa. 333 U. too.S. 410 U.52 the requirement for public trial53 and the reasonable doubt standard are deemed dictates of due process.S.57 Due process has also been referred to in relation to 47 See Roe v.S..47 and likewise it has been attempted – unsuccessfully – to justify a claim to a right to suicide. 428 (2000) R B G 53 Re Oliver. “A filing fee. 52 See Dickerson v. 396 (1974) A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 56 See Banaga v. 424 (2001).S. Jr. for instance.48 And. and proportionate to the service for which the fee is being collected. This intent of the Framers was captured in the record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. 397 U. If one’s purpose is simply to roast a pig. then he need not have to burn the barn.” 48 49 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER See Washington v.50 as well as in relation to the right not to be subjected to excessive exemplary damages. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v.AR EVIEW 517 U. it has been implicated in the right of a woman to have an abortion. Majaducon.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Due Process guaranties have far-reaching consequences and ramifications. United States. v. 532 U. 416 U.”55 In the Philippines. 257 (1948) 54 In Re Winship. “The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights. 575 SCRA 113 (2008) . v. the Court declared: “The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. 538 U. does due process makes its presence know in the requirement for reasonableness of presumptions. 721 SCRA 146 (2014). 463 (1943) B R 2017 51 See BMW of North America.56 Exorbitant and unreasonable filing fees likewise violate due process. . GMA Network. . This means that inmates must have a reasonable opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of attorneys.S. as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play.60 need for courts to explicitly state the factual and legal bases for their judgments.”64 The Court also observed in another case: “The Court shall not fake naiveté of the prevalent practice among lawyers who. Due process is not to be bandied like a slogan. the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. 565 SCRA 72 (2008). The plea may impress at first glance. it usually pleads a denial of due process. “Ultimately. Bermas. but the Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. the Court recognized the right of a person with the condition of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). which is different from what was indicated at the moment of birth.”63 In another case. 227 SCRA 703 (1993). he may find an ally or just an illusory companion. Sec. we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual. lacking plausible support for their position. it concluded with this observation: “The Court is not unaware of the practice of some lawyers who. 406 SCRA 658 (2003).” 59 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER Tañada v. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. having reached the age of majority. the Supreme Court opened its opinion with this observation: “It has not escaped the attention of the Court that when a party runs out of arguments. but it does not often succeed upon closer examination. the Court has come up with the concept of statutory due process in order to distinguish it 58 E. its name should not be invoked in vain but only when justice has not been truly served. 40 Phil. with good reason thinks of his/her sex.. 306 SCRA 135 (1999). (“The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process. It has nonetheless been embodied in a B R ARto provide separate clause in Article III. It was noted that the current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female. caution should also be had in using it indiscriminately for it could as soon lend itself to noticeable misuse. Depending on how well one may wield the due process argument. Prado. The ground will prove unavailing.g. It is not a mere catch-phrase. 469 SCRA 169 (2005) . In People v. Camus. or never had any to begin with. and not surprisingly since it is virtually only a pro forma argument. National Labor Relations Commission. Ferrer. It is a recognition of such person’s liberty to choose what he or she really is.62 In Republic v. 1. People v. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive.” Nevertheless. 550 (1919) 63 Bautista v. is fixed. In one case. it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. Cagandahan. of the Constitution EVIEW 2017 a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.”) R B G 61 Yao v. 363 SCRA 62 (2001). Secretary of Labor and Employment. Santocildes. and. 321 SCRA 310 (1999). v. like respondent. Liberties National Laborvis-à-vis An Arsenal Of860 Arms 64 Pacific Timber Export Corporation Relations Commission. 344 SCRA 202 (2000) 62 Visayan Refining Co. Jr.61 It has likewise been considered in connection with expropriations. The due process requirement is part of a person’s basic rights. 136 SCRA 27 (1985) and 146 SCRA 446 (1986) 60 Philippine Judges Association v. simply claim a denial of due process as if it were a universal absolution. the Court declared: “The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned. or intersexuality.59 equal protection. like respondent.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.’”65 Finally. to have her birth certificate corrected to indicate the gender that such persons may think he or she has. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice. Court of Appeals. what with all its plaintive invocation of the Bill of Rights. Liwanag.. 196 SCRA 470 (1991) A Library Ofv. As the highest hallmark of the free society. People v. for lack of better argument to bolster their position. Updates and Teasers Page 12 of 99 the rights to counsel. Tuvera. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons. 224 SCRA (1993) 65 NEECO II v. People v.58 information. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. engage in waxing lyrical to ‘a denial of due process. depending on what the statute violated itself provides. . It came up with something new – two concepts of due process: (a) constitutional due process. “This is not to say that the Court was wrong when it ruled the way it did in Wenphil. There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases. It has to allow for changing times and circumstances. the employee would be deemed still an employee in the meantime. Otherwise stated. Is this fatal to the determination of the case? No – he was given the opportunity but he tried to evade service. (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared. the Court noted: J URISTS “In this case. (2) docket fees had been paid. the Court held that the dismissal of an employee who was separated for cause without affording him the notice required by law was considered ineffectual until validated by final judgment. National Labor Relations Commission. Cotabato City. The Court majority in that case was also emphatic that such dismissal was not a violation of due process as the guarantee in the Bill of Rights is directed against governmental action. (b) statutory due process. Branch 15. 669 SCRA 24 (2012) This case is about the administrative investigation of a judge in Cotabato who was involved in coming up with fictitious marriage annulment decisions which were thereafter registered in the Civil Registries of Manila and Quezon City. In effect. Office of the Court Administrator v. pending or decided in RTC. not private acts.66 1. National Labor Relations Commission. In other words.” 67 To highlight the misconduct of the respondent judge. a good window to what it had done recently in changing its mind on its earlier decisions. what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. 442 SCRA 573 (2004).R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. in the application of the principle of due process. Thus. Not even the filing of the petitions occurred. ShariffAguak. in the latter it would not necessarily be the case. and. Then.” Moreover. administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. the constitutional precept that public office is a public trust serves as an underlying principle 66 Note what the Court said in this case. Such act undoubtedly constitutes gross misconduct. ***** “In this case. Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court. R B G without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied with the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages. nor in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court. Judge Indar. Serrano and related cases. The Court held that “[i]t is settled that ‘technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative proceedings. While under the former. . the list of B R AR andEVIEW case titles submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila 2017 Quezon City are not found in the list of cases filed. issued decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage cases. Indar. in Agabon v.” . 323 SCRA 445 (2000). Updates and Teasers Page 13 of 99 from constitutional due process. (4) hearings had been conducted.67 Since the respondent judge had moved to an unknown address. As found by the Audit Team. In Serrano v.’ It is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him is decided. Social justice is not based on rigid formulas set in stone. or (5) the cases were submitted for decision. its violation would lead to the nullity of the action made. The investigating justice noted that all possible means to locate the respondent judge and to personally serve the court notices to him were resorted to. The Supreme Court also said that the notice of its Resolution preventively suspending the judge was mailed and sent to him at his court. and accordingly entitled to his wages until his dismissal would have been affirmed. Cotabato City. he could not be served with notice and he did not appear in the investigation. who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law. Judge Indar issued decisions R on numerousEVIEW C annulment ofENTER marriage cases which do not exist in the records of RTC-ShariffAguak. Judge Indar issued Decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases when in fact he did not conduct any judicial A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms proceedings on the cases. How did it turn around in a manner that is not entirely contrary to what it said four years earlier? Simple. the Court characterized the dismissal without complying with the notice requirement as a violation of due process. . Capin-Cadiz echoed the Court’s holding in Leus. there was due notice on Judge Indar of the charges against him. An order for x x x support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.” 2. Republic v. The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Updates and Teasers Page 14 of 99 for the for the relaxation of the requirements of due process of law in administrative proceedings. RTC-Cotabato. the Court ruled in this case. Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct. where the Court held invalid the sanctions – dismissal in Leus and indefinite suspension in Capin-Cadiz – imposed on female employees in religious institutions simply on the ground that they got pregnant outside of marriage even as there was no legal impediment to them getting married.” Thus. morality is to be the basis. who were presumably authorized and capable to receive notices on behalf of Judge Indar. refer to those conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral.68 68 See Leus v. as stated in Leus. There is still a necessity to determine whether the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is B considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance withAR R EVIEW the prevailing 2017 norms of conduct. consequently. companionship.” And. Further.” Further. are equally valid. are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral. A Library likewise. “Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. to have children or no children. Asok. the Court said that the fact of the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock. to love one another or not. Thus. in regard . does Of Liberties not confonn vis-à-vis to public and secularAn Arsenal standards. without more. could that be a ground for declaration of nullity? No. Perla v. status. while one of the notices was received by a certain Mrs. pregnancy out of wedlock. The Court likewise noted: “In this case. Albios. J URISTS is not enough to characterize her conduct as disgraceful R EVIEW or immoral. secular. 785 SCRA 18 (2016).g. Capin-Cadiz v. not religious. and. money. for that. the Court said that the alleged filiation must be established with sufficient certainty.. Judge Indar was given ample opportunity to controvert the charges against him.” And.. The right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit. Judge Indar was repeatedly sent notices of hearings to his known addresses. the first two notices of hearing were received by one Mustapha Randang of the Clerk of Court. to live together or live apart. stating. marriages entered into for other purposes. limited or otherwise. Judge Indar cannot feign ignorance of the administrative investigation against him because aside from the fact that the Court’s Resolution suspending him was mailed to him. 707 SCRA 584 (2013) If a marriage of convenience – e. Of Armsthere must be substantial More importantly. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional questions. such as convenience. Scholastica’s College Westgrove. 685 SCRA 101 (2012) When it comes to complaint for support based on a child’s alleged filiation to a particular man. Brent Hospital and Colleges. Inc. St. which. and so on. 748 SCRA 378 (2015). for the acquisition of foreign citizenship – does not work out as planned. The fact that a particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a certain sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it. Baring. it is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting. and title. inter alia: “Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with R B G which an act should be gauged – it is public and secular. C ENTER “There must be substantial evidence to establish that pre-marital sexual relations and. although the marriage may be considered a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration. provided that they comply with all the legal requisites.” 3. not religious. Thus. “Time and again. While there is no proof that Judge Indar personally received the notices of hearing issued by the Investigating Justices. Moreover. the Court held: “That the petitioner was employed by a Catholic educational institution per se does not absolutely determine whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. In Leus. his preventive suspension was reported in major national newspapers. S. many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. the Court made reference to the four principles and traditions regarding marriage that to the right of women to choose whether to get married or not. . .” For its analysis. however. a belief often embodied in the criminal law. there is no constitutional or statutory provision limiting the definition of a family or preventing any attempt to deviate from our traditional template of what a family should be. Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. Obergefell v. It is part of the protected liberty interests of individuals. The MRPS is a department order issued by the Department of Education (DepEd) in the exercise of its power to regulate private schools. including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. no State shall ‘deprive any person of life.” . . without due process of law. . In this case. . it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. ___ (No. the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private employers. That responsibility. the U. Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women protects women against discrimination in all matters relating to marriage and family relations.S. The Court. In other jurisdictions. “Indeed. However.” The Court further held that “[u]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Updates and Teasers Page 15 of 99 4. There is no rhyme or reason for it. to highlight the flexibility of ideas and legal principles. the petitioner “and other women similarly situated are free to be single mothers by choice. . changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations. .’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. there is also a constitutional dimension to this case that should be considered.” And.” Of Arms In other words. Do persons of the same sex have the right to demand that their similar arrangement be recognized and legitimized by the government? In this case. including the right to choose freely a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent. ‘has not been reduced to any formula. liberty. The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy. petitioner’s decision “to continue with her pregnancy outside of wedlock is a constitutionally protected right. For this reason. the Court said: “It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite- sex partners. 26 June 2015) Marriage is traditionally understood as a union between a man and a woman. often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process. Brent’s reliance on laws and governmental issuances justifies the view that the Constitution should permeate a proper adjudication of the issue. . there is a growing clamor for laws to be readjusted to suit theA Library needs of a risingOf classLiberties vis-à-vis of women – single mothers by An Arsenal choice. . B R AR ignored the values expressed in the Constitution cannot be completely EVIEW 2017 in the just adjudication of labor cases. The Constitution protects personal autonomy as part of the Due Process Clause in the Bill of Rights. Brent invokes the MRPS to support Christine Joy’s dismissal. 576 U. This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. The Court also noted that the institution of marriage has evolved over time.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. R B G their provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that will violate the fundamental law of the land.” J URISTS Noteworthy also in Capin-Cadiz is the concurring R opinionEVIEW C ENTER of Justice Jardeleza where he pointed out. 14-556. the Court said: “With particular regard to women. it becomes apparent that Brent’s condition is coercive. in the application of laws and governmental regulations. Until the mid-20th century. Hodges. Indeed. like many institutions. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. . . .” In short. among others. which is a privilege that inheres in her as an intangible and inalienable right. This is a woman’s right to personal autonomy as a fundamental right. he said: “While marriage is the ideal starting point of a family. or property. Supreme Court said yes. Rather. same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations. among others: “While the ponencia views the issue from the perspective of public and secular morality. oppressive and discriminatory. It forces Cadiz to marry for economic reasons and deprives her of the freedom to choose her status.” On single motherhood. has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. Hence. a means by which they define and express their identity.’ . Weighed against these safeguards. . Maliksi filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court which resulted in a judgment in his favor. This is about an election contest involving the position of municipal mayor. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way. the First Division of the .even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right. andC ENTER under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Maliksi v. In the automated elections in 2010.” The Court further declared: “The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition. Saquilayan emerged winner. Commission on Elections. Saquilayan brought up the matter to the A Library Commission on Elections and Of the Liberties vis-à-vis results were reversed.” And. “And in assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples. Under the Constitution.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.acted law and public policy. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived. the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. thereby resulting in an R B G invalid judgment.” The Court then held: “These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a JURISTS fundamental right inherent in the liberty of theR EVIEW person. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. but rights come not from ancient sources alone. procreation. and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite- sex couples. from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. “[a] second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. personal opposition becomes en. “[t]he limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just. “[f]ourth and finally. this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. But when that sincere. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive. They rise.” Further. and education. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter. yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.” BAR R693 5. but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. “[a] third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing. though they set forth independent principles. Many who deem same- sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.” Ultimately. Updates and Teasers Page 16 of 99 impelled it to now accord the same-sex marriages the legitimacy sought. SCRA2017 EVIEW 214 and 696 SCRA 272 (2013) Procedural irregularities violate a party’s entitlement to due process of law. too. the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.” Accordingly. too.An In Arsenal Of Arms so deciding.” It went to hold that “[a] first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. the COMELEC. as amended. the First Division did not issue any order directingOf theLiberties recount. Quite unexpectedly. or to any of them.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. printing and use of the ballot images for the purpose of determining the true will of the electorate. Maliksi filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and the Court obliged him – also by an 8-7 vote. the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of the voters’ will. the Court.Of Maliksi A Library vis-à-vis Arsenal Armswas deprived of the chance to seek any reconsideration or even to assail the irregularly-held recount through a seasonable . that when either is presented as evidence. To be R B G exact. a motion for reconsideration. Without theAn written order. without giving notice to the parties.” As the Court saw it. but this time the majority had shifted to the other side! In reversing the original disposition. by a 8-7 vote. In its original decision. decided to recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the CF cards. The Court explained that “the First Division should not have conducted the assailed recount proceedings because it was then exercising appellate jurisdiction as to which no existing rule of procedure allowed it to conduct a recount in the first instance. . said that there was no denial of due process since Maliksi was fully aware of the decryption.’ . Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their picture images. “the power of the COMELEC to adopt procedures that will ensure the speedy resolution of its cases should still be exercised only after giving to all the parties the opportunity to be heard on their opposing claims. or to be treated so lightly because of the possibility of the substantial prejudice to be thereby caused to the parties. the motion for reconsideration was actually directed against the entire resolution of the First Division. In that regard.” But. The parties’ right to be heard upon adversarial issues and matters is never to be waived or sacrificed. The recount proceedings authorized under Section 6. “[t]he disregard of Maliksi’s right to be informed of the decision to print the picture images of the ballots and to conduct the recountBproceedings AR REVIEW 2017 during the appellate stage cannot be brushed aside by the invocation of the fact that Maliksi was able to file. 8804. Rule 15 of COMELEC Resolution No. the COMELEC En Banc upheld the First Division’s unwarranted deviation from the standard procedures by invoking the COMELEC’s power to ‘take such measures as [the Presiding Commissioner] may deem proper. . the new majority said that “the First Division of the COMELEC denied to him the right to due process by failing to give due notice on the decryption and printing of the ballot images. while Maliksi’s claim of due process violation is directed only against the First Division’s recount proceedings that resulted in the prejudicial result rendered against him. after all. Updates and Teasers Page 17 of 99 Commission. “the First Division arbitrarily arrogated unto itself the conduct of the recount proceedings. the Court said. one is not considered as weightier than the other – the Court proceeded to qualify: “But this juridical reality does not authorize the courts.” After noting that the official ballot and its picture image are considered “original documents” – both of them are given equal probative weight.” The Court then annulled the recount proceedings conducted by the First Division with the use of the printouts of the ballot images. are to be conducted by the COMELEC Divisions only in the exercise of their exclusive original jurisdiction over all election protests involving elective regional (the autonomous regions).” Further. Notably. contrary to the regular procedure of remanding the protest to the RTC and directing the reconstitution of the Revision Committee for the decryption and printing of the picture images and the revision of the ballots on the basis thereof. and the Electoral Tribunals to quickly and unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. theJpicture URISTS REVIEW images of the C ENTER ballots are to be used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has been compromised. provincial and city officials. It said: “The issue of whether or not the Ombudsman possesses the requisite legal interest to intervene in the proceedings where its decision is at risk of being inappropriately impaired has been laid to rest in Ombudsman v. Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy. specially if it is reversed. Cudia v. to the Academy. the Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman could not and should not intervene in the appeal from its decision. 689 SCRA 452 BAR REVIEW 2017 (2013) In view of the fact that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis – they are neither R B G purely civil nor purely criminal – and that they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. the Court held otherwise. he had no real opportunity to assail the conduct of the recount proceedings. A good balance should. . . Hence. It has been said that the mission of the military is unique in the sense that its primary business is to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.” The Court declared that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in disallowing the Ombudsman’s JURISTS REVIEW motion CENTER to intervene – it failed to consider the essence of the Ombudsman’s constitutionally and statutorily conferred powers establishing its clear legal interest in ensuring that its directive be implemented. In that context. part of its broad powers include defending its decisions before the CA. The complainant is not indispensable to the proceedings and her failure to appear forAcross-examination Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis or to provide An Arsenal corroborative Of Arms evidence is of not that relevant. In the said case. 751 SCRA 632 (2015) In Office of the Ombudsman v. not the trial of an action or a suit. . to leave for Maliksi to surmise on the factual bases for finding the need to print the picture images still violated the principles of fair play. and that over-proceduralizing military determinations necessarily gives soldiers less time to accomplish this task. the Court conclusively ruled that even if the Ombudsman was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings. 8. the Court held: “Like in other institutions of higher learning. and. 751 SCRA 469 (2015) In regard to administrative investigations involving students in military schools. De Chavez [700 SCRA 399 (2013). generally. practicality. It should remain detached. Ylaya v. and efficiency. but also demands an opportunity to be present at such proceedings or to be represented therein. 612 SCRA 702 (2010). be struck to achieve fairness. In Quimbo. Sison.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. there is aversion towards undue judicialization of an administrative hearing in the military academy. And pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. The service of the First Division orders requiring Saquilayan to post and augment the cash deposits for the printing of the picture images did not sufficiently give Maliksi notice of the First Division’s decision to print the picture images. at 404-406]. the Ombudsman may validly intervene in the said proceedings as its legal interest on the matter is beyond cavil. not an advocate. Updates and Teasers Page 18 of 99 petition for certiorari in this Court. in keeping with its role as adjudicator. Excessive delays cannot be tolerated since it is unfair to the accused. The said orders did not meet the requirements of due process because they did not specifically inform Maliksi that the ballots had been found to be tampered. printing.” 6. and timeliness. thoroughness. . Gacott. therefore. Extensive cadet investigations and complex due process hearing could sacrifice simplicity. because the responsibility and the obligation to lay down the factual bases and to inform Maliksi as the party to be potentially prejudiced thereby firmly rested on the shoulders of the First Division. Office of the Ombudsman v. Nor did the orders offer the factual bases for the finding of tampering. due process of law does not only require notice of the decryption. to the Armed Forces. to his or her fellow cadets. however.” 7. Moreover. Quimbo. it is not mandatory to have a formal hearing in which the complainant must adduce evidence. and recount proceedings to the parties. Prescribing Penalties Therefor. As the Court intoned in Mirasol v. petitioner posits. Societal norms and traditions BARpursuers. And if you’re good enough. 9262 (2004).” is assailed for being allegedly violative of the guaranty of equal protection in the sense that it does not similarly protect men who are victim of the same acts which are criminalized by the law. EQUAL PROTECTION The guarantee of equal protection is no argument for absolute equality. and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre succinctly states. entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children. and take on subordinate roles in society. and for Other Purposes. classification by itself is not prohibited. consider yourself not just anyone. but not so under other situations and climes. and other bases for classification may make for some valid differences at times.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.70 1. you may even end up as a class by yourself.69 As for you taking the Bar exams. “[t]o begin with. Updates and Teasers Page 19 of 99 D. while women are nurturers. The Court said the equal protection clause is not violated since there is a valid basis for classification. 562 (2000) (The Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a “class of one” where the plaintiff does not allege membership in a class or group. courses of study. violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship between women and men otherwise known as “gender-based violence”. is the essence of true equality. 433 U. dictate people to think men are the leaders. 446 SCRA 299 (2004) See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech. academic performance..” and then went on to state that “[n]ot all motorized vehicles are created equal.)Of Arms See also Nixon v. 490 SCRA 318 (2006). . “The unequal power relationship between women and men. REVIEW 2017 and take on dominant roles in society providers. Garcia v. 528 U.’” The Court noted that “[a]ccording to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National JURISTS REVIEW Machinery CENTER for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment). for what it only assures is legal equality. what may be constitutional when seen from one perspective may not be so from another vantage point. Since R. v.S. and excluding all others. the classification must be related to the very purpose of the law and that there should be substantial distinctions which make for real differences. Age. Inc.S. While you are like your fellow examinees with the same ambition and aim of becoming lawyers. It would hardly be fair nor just that people who are not equally circumstanced be given the same treatment. There is a substantial distinction between men and women in this particular area. 69 70 R B G See Central Bank Employees Association. Department of Public Works and Highways. 9262 is intended to prevent and criminalize spousal and child abuse. otherwise. and so on. And.. 699 SCRA 352 (2013) Republic Act No. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Gender may be relevant in regard to certain classifications but not in others. Administrator of General Services. but alleges that she has been intentionally treated A Library differently from others similarly Of that situated and Liberties vis-à-vis there is no rational Ansuch basis for Arsenal treatment. legitimacy. Drilon. Providing for Protective Measures for Victims. men’s companions and supporters. it would be as offensive to the notion as the very idea of unequal treatment among equals. the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence. which could very well be committed by either the husband or the wife. gender alone should not be enough basis to deprive the husband/father of the remedies under the law. 425 (1977). ‘the accommodation of differences .A. office and status. Inherent therefore in the application of the Equal Protection Clause is the need for valid classifications so as to determine who or what could properly be grouped together for particular treatment.” In this regard. you are still different from everyone else. A. 9262. that R. 9262 is not limited to the existing conditions when it was promulgated. the Court dismissed the contention that R. addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures focused on women does not discriminate against men.” Thus. 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women. women are the “usual” and “most likely” victims of violence. Gallant Maritime Services. As emphasized by the CEDAW [Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. which is to address violence committed against women and children. the Court observed that “[f]rom the initial report to the police through prosecution. for every classification of persons or things for regulation by law produces inequality in some degree. guidelines and policiesJof URISTS REVIEW the National CENTER Commission for Culture and the Arts and the Cultural Center of the Philippines as to the selection of the nominees for conferment of the Order of National Artists. 701 SCRA 269 (2013) Here. And VAW is a form of men’s expression of controlling women to retain power. but to future conditions as well. 9262 invalid. “[t]he enactment of R. 3. With power comes the need to control to retain that power. and that the conferment of the R B G Order of National Artists on them was therefore made with grave abuse of discretion. Serrano v.” At the same time.A. but the law is not thereby rendered invalid. R.A. trial. relatively few cases of violence and abuse perpetrated against men in the Philippines. Updates and Teasers Page 20 of 99 This perception leads to men gaining more power over women. for as long as the safety and security of women and their children are threatened by violence and abuse.A. the same cannot render R. “[t]he mere fact that the legislative classification may result in actual inequality is not violative of the right to equal protection. 582 SCRA 254 (2009) At issue here is A theLibrary constitutionality of the vis-à-vis Of Liberties last clauseAn of the 5th paragraph Arsenal Of Armsof §10 R.” Then. “On the other hand.A. VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship. have exhibited prejudices and biases against our women.” As for gender biases and prejudices. no reliable estimates may be obtained on domestic abuse and violence against men in the Philippines because incidents thereof are relatively low and. as well. No. it added its own judicial mea culpa – “Sadly. Such guidelines and policies proscribed her from having a free and uninhibited hand in the conferment of the said award.A.A.” Furthermore. Inc. the Court further noted: “While there are. 9262 applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.” and “hate- men” law deserves scant consideration. the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. guidelines and processes of the NCCA and the CCP was an arbitrary act which unduly favored certain nominees. “As defined above. . therefore. because many men will not even attempt to report the situation. 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit. . 9262 is discriminatory and that it is an “anti-male. indeed. The manifest BARdisregard REVIEW 2017 of the rules. “the application of R.” 2. crimes against women are often treated differently and less seriously than other crimes. our own courts.” Finally.” And. The 5 paragraph provides: “In case of .’ Clearly.A.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.” Moreover.” “husband-bashing. Executive Secretary. 8042 th (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995). .. perhaps. Almario v. Petitioner’s contention. the Court ruled that there was a violation of the equal protection clause when former President Arroyo gave preferential treatment to certain persons relative to the national artist awards in disregard of the rules. and sentencing. The Court also pointed out that the “distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of R. “[w]hether or not R. plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term. Vinuya.” Does this violate the guarantee of equal protection among OFWs? Yes. like Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co..R. we make no pronouncement on it. in the process singling out one category whose contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion thereof. 10222 (approved on 8 March 2010). In other words. which the Court held to be invalid for being unreasonable as well as being violative of the Equal Protection Clause.A. R EVIEW valid or authorized C ENTER cause as defined by law or contract. Inc. but all the while sparing the other category from such prejudice. viz: the rational scrutiny. Inc. as distinguished from those of a particular class. this court awaits an actual case that clearly raises adversarial positions in their proper context before considering a prayer to declare it as unconstitutional. simply because the latter’s unexpired contracts fall short of one year. whichever is less. “The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the justification given by the Government for its conduct is gauged by using the means-end test. No. intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.” The Court further observed that “the subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods are for more than one year: those who are illegally dismissed with less than one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof.” The Court went on to declare the amendment invalid. whichever is less. by writing the same language invalidated in Serrano. we are confronted with a unique situation. This test requires analysis of: (1) the interests of the public that generally require its exercise. . amended §10. this is an issue that awaits its proper day in court. 16 August 2016) In regard to the ban imposed by the City of Davao on aerial spraying as an agricultural practice. or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker's salary. in the meanwhile. The Court noted that “[t]he enactment of the subject clause in R. The Court chose not to touch the issue of constitutionality of the amendment brought about by R. – SCRA – (G. Inc. The law passedA Library incorporates theOf Liberties exact clause alreadyvis-à-vis An Arsenalwithout declared as unconstitutional. however.A. viz: “In case of J URISTS termination of overseas employment without just. To determine the propriety of the classification. plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term. 189185 and 189305. the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum. The rational basis test often applies in cases involving 71 Congress seems to have wittingly or unwittingly defied the Supreme Court in enacting R. and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries for three months only. 10022. Updates and Teasers Page 21 of 99 termination of overseas employment without just. 680 SCRA 284 (2012) – applying retroactively Serrano but not R. v.A. Section 7 of the new law. However. while those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more remaining in their contracts shall be covered by the subject clause. v. 732 SCRA 22 (2014).. 10022 is constitutional is not for us to rule upon in the present R B G case as this is an issue that is not squarely before us.” BAR REVIEW 2017 Serrano was given a retroactive effect in other cases.”71 4. Nos. No. the Court saying. the Court also discussed some significant concepts such as levels of scrutiny and overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness. 8042. the worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement fee and the deductions made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum. in Sameer Overseas Placement Agency. Pilipino Banana Growers & Export Association.A. and (2) the means employed that are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly oppressive upon individuals. the Court took the bull by its horns: “When a law is passed. 10222. courts resort to three levels of scrutiny. whichever is less. No. 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment periods.A.A. valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract.” Subsequently. ¶5 of R. Of Arms any perceived substantial change in the circumstances. The rational basis scrutiny (also known as the rational relation test or rational basis test) demands that the classification reasonably relate to the legislative purpose.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Cabiles. Mosqueda v. ” Further. accompanied by a warrant. may consider it his birthright to be free from unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions into his life. 411 SCRA 81 (2003) . he must still do it in a civilized manner. He must have probable cause for the same. Further. reasonableness also goes to the manner of serving and R B G executing it. as a general rule. his witnesses and other supporting documents. the Court had this to say: “The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from the conduct of any mode of pesticide application. Accordingly. The imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of substances other than fungicides and regardless of the agricultural activity being performed becomes unreasonable inasmuch as it patently bears no relation to the purported inconvenience. . A classification that is drastically underinclusive with respect to the purpose or end appears as an irrational means to the legislative end because it poorly serves the intended purpose of the law. And. not because one is armed with a warrant that he would now have the perfect right to simply barge into houses or dwellings like the gestapo. When the classification puts a quasi-suspect class at a disadvantage. REVIEW it requires CENTER that before any searches or seizures be had. Updates and Teasers Page 22 of 99 economics or social welfare. He would not want to have a Big Brother looking over his shoulders and minding his affairs. Classifications based on gender or illegitimacy receives intermediate scrutiny. the same must be. discomfort and alleged health risks to the community and to the environment. To survive intermediate scrutiny. The strict scrutiny review applies when a legislative classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class. it will be treated under intermediate or heightened review. Its implementation will unnecessarily impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included in the intended class based on the purpose of the law. . In the process. Even manual spraying or truck-mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same inconvenience. or too broad. The guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures upholds that JURISTS expectation of privacy. The Government carries the burden to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. the law must not only further an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest. unless his life or A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 72 See People v. or to any other case not involving a suspect class. But even in the issuance of such warrants by a judge. Go. the ordinance suffers from being ‘underinclusive’ because the classification does not include all individuals tainted with the same mischief that the law seeks to eliminate. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES A citizen in a democratic and republican state. issued by one who is disinterested and detached from the task of law enforcement. and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. It can be noted that the imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance applies irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be conducted. “[a]side from its being underinclusive. .72 As much as possible.” As to whether a measure is too narrow. He must abide by the “knock and announce” procedure. discomfort. A ban against aerial spraying does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve. health risk and environmental danger which the ordinance seeks to address. the magistrate is not that free to simply issue it for no B AR R reason all or on 2017 atEVIEW flimsy grounds.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. for starters. but the justification for the classification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations.” E. the assailed ordinance also tend to be ‘overinclusive’ because its impending implementation will affect groups that have no relation to the accomplishment of the legislative purpose. which he must determine personally by carefully examining the complainant. 398 [2006]) 76 This is the American counterpart to Art. A search warrant is a police weapon. it recognizes that no single set of legal rules can capture the ever changing complexity of human life. issued under the police power. the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. It resembles in some respect what is commonly known as John Doe proceedings. or the evidence would likely be destroyed by any delay. but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal property. the plain view doctrine. 103 (2006) 78 United Laboratories.”73 As for hot pursuit. Grubbs. concurring in Georgia Randolph. III. one must always remember that the touchstone is reasonableness. the Court said that it is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of discovery employed by the State to procure relevant evidence of crime. and made necessary because of public necessity. Updates and Teasers Page 23 of 99 safety may be in danger.”77 It has also been stated that a search warrant proceeding is. restricted to cases of public prosecutions. such as search incident to a lawful arrest. “[T]he Fourth Amendment76 does not insist upon bright-line rules. airport searches. search of moving vehicles. exceptions which are better understood when seen in the context in which they developed. It is in the nature of a criminal process. and second. private complainants can participate in these proceedings – they may appear. there are the in flagrante delicto. Inc. 547 U. inter alia. Generoso. Further.S.” (Brigham City v.’ connoting immediacy.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Under paragraph (a). participate and file pleadings to maintain. 90 (2006): “Because the probable-cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted. §2 of the Philippine Constitution. 693 SCRA 549 (2013) 74 Pestilos v.75 And that is not something cast in rigid and inflexible forms and shapes. In regard to warrantless arrests. the contemplated offense was qualified by the word ‘just. The proceeding is not one against any person. the following are the notable changes: first. The requirement of a search warrant being a general rule. he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed. Supreme Court declared in United States v. in no sense.’ EVIEW ENTER In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item they believe is already located there. “hot pursuit” and escaped-prisoners exceptions. “[i]n both instances. It is a special and peculiar remedy.S. a criminal action or the commencement of a prosecution. the validity of the search warrant issued by the court and the admissibility of the properties seized in anticipation of a criminal case to be filed. As for the search warrant itself. 547 U. the magistrate’s determination that there is probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still 73 BAR REVIEW 2017 People v. all J URISTS warrants Rin are. Isip. and.C‘anticipatory. 461 SCRA 574 (2005) . Rather. v.Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 77 Justice Breyer.”74 In considering the things and circumstances relative to the question of whether a search or seizure was in accordance with the Constitution.78 In regard to anticipatory warrants – where they are applied for even before the contraband is yet to be delivered to the place to be searched – the U. the warrantless arrest of a person sought to be arrested should be based on probable cause to be determined by the arresting officer based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. it appears that for purposes of Section 5(b). Here. whether in cases of in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit.S. 739 SCRA 337 (2014) R B G 75 “[B]ecause the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.S. Stuart. a sense. A Library Of v. the officer himself witnesses the crime while under paragraph (b). it necessarily follows that some exceptions would have to be accommodated.’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. 547 U. drastic in nature. lately. the Court has pointed out that “[f]rom the current phraseology of the rules on warrantless arrest. Villareal. they may be valid subjects of a search warrant. things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity.’” 1. among other grounds. Human remains can be transported from place to place. and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person. It must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs ‘there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained. any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. the Court said: “For a valid waiver by the accused A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 79 Cited in People v. The warrant was sought to be quashed. Updates and Teasers Page 24 of 99 be there when the warrant is executed. Directly related to the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the right to privacy. the Court gave these guidelines. 2. Cogaed. but also that there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur. 741 SCRA 239 (2014) Are “human remains” personal property which could be the subject of a search warrant? Yes. “Cogaed’s silence or lack of aggressive objection was a natural reaction to a coercive environment brought about by the police officer’s excessive intrusion into his private space.’ .” In that sense. two prerequisites of probability must be satisfied. evidence of a crime. specially of moving vehicles (and their use for smuggling).79 edifies: “[T]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. and they qualify under the phrase “subject of the offense”given JURISTS REVIEW CENTER that they prove the crime’s corpus delicti. the Court said. 193 SCRA 122 (1991). In a case involving alleged summary executions of six victims by the Davao Death Squad. They also require the magistrate to determine (1) that it is now probable that (2) contraband. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a ‘constitutional right’ and ‘the right most valued by civilized men. Within these zones. the following passage from People v. ‘no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy’ and ‘everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. on the claim that human remains are not personal property. “In other words. .R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. and free from any coercion. The R B G prosecution and the police carry the burden of showing that the waiver of a constitutional right is one which is knowing. or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the warrant is executed. such waivers are not to be presumed. the place.” With regard to warrantless searches. In all cases.” Nevertheless. intelligent. 532 SCRA 152 (2007) . anticipatory warrants are no different in principle from ordinary warrants. In this regard. the Court said in Sabio v.” And. People v. Lo Ho Wing. 731 SCRA 427 (2014) BAR R On silence or lack of protest as a possible EVIEW 2017 manifestation of consent or waiver. Tuazon. 504 SCRA 704 (2006): “Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. there must still be probable cause to justify such warrantless search of a vehicle. the RTC issued a warrant for the search of the remains in three caves in Davao. for a conditioned anticipatory warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause. The Court said that “personal property” in the context of §3. Laud v. Gordon. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court refers to the thing’s mobility. Accordingly. in a warning akin to Miranda waiver. People. .’ but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. with his or her personal knowledge. a basic criterion would be that the police officer. The information as to the accused’s whereabouts was sent through a text message. In this case.’ Tan and Tangcoy did not intend to bring the petitioner under custody or to restrain his liberty. must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. The bag that allegedly contained the contraband was required to be opened under intimidating circumstances and without the accused having been fully apprised of his rights. or be known as a police officer. 740 SCRA 456 (2014).R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. “Clearly. the intent to arrest the petitioner only came after they allegedly confiscated the shabu. law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. they should have the ability to discern – based on facts that they themselves observe – whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Updates and Teasers Page 25 of 99 of his or her constitutional right. “‘Stop and frisk’ searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. This was not a reasonable search within the meaning of the Constitution. When Tan and Tangcoy allegedly saw the petitioner jaywalking. There was nothing suspicious. Tan and Tangcoy ‘immediately BARaccosted REVIEW 2017 him and told him to cross [at] the designated area.” The Court explained that “stop and frisk” searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime. Homar v. petitioner was merely ‘ordered’ to take out the contents of his pocket. In fact. The police officer must also inform the person to be searched that any inaction on his or her part will amount to a waiver of any of his or her objections that the circumstances do not amount to a reasonable search.” . the petitioner JURISTS REVIEW CENTER was allegedly arrested for jaywalking but the same was not duly proven.”80 Further. There must be an assurance given to the police officer that the accused fully understands his or her rights. The police officer must communicate this clearly and in a language known to the person who is about to waive his or her constitutional rights. As the Court framed the issue: “The police officers identified the alleged perpetrator through facts that were not based on their personal knowledge. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. the A Library consent must beOf Liberties unequivocal. The balance lies in the concept of ‘suspiciousness’ present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in.” In this particular case. about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag. The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney driver. Here. no arrest preceded the search on the person of the petitioner.” 3. The fundamental nature of a person’s constitutional right to privacy requires no less. the policeman undertaking it must have made the personal observation about the suspicious movements of the suspect. that is. it is not sufficient that the police officer introduce himself or herself. The accused who never acted suspicious was identified by a driver. Clearly. Of Arms and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. This lack of intent to arrest him was bolstered by the fact that there was no criminal charge that was filed against R B G the petitioner for crossing a ‘no jaywalking’ area. they did not arrest him but accosted him and pointed to him the right place for crossing. It was the driver who signalled to the police that Cogaed was “suspicious. the Court said: “Consent must also be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search. 768 SCRA 584 (2015) Where there is no arrest. vis-à-vis specific.” 80 In Villanueva v. There was no reasonable suspicion that would allow a legitimate ‘stop and frisk’ action. Section 2 of the Constitution. this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III. Hence. intelligentlyAn Arsenal given. not on the information supplied by somebody else. However. That is. People. there could be no justification for an incidental search. criminal. moreover. People. for a valid stop and frisk. Cogaed was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling on board a jeepney. From Tan’s testimony. according to the RTC. “[r]outine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities. “Customs searches. appellants are not in any position to claim protection of the right against unreasonable searches as to the warrantless search of the bus. leaving behind their belongings. Dela Cruz v. in the enforcement of customs laws. “[a]pplied analogously. 767 SCRA 40 (2015) There is lessened expectation of privacy in a bus or other forms of public transportation. 730 SCRA 655 (2014) JURISTSDrugs In Social Justice Society v. at that point in time. . Constitutional provisions protecting privacy should not be so literally understood so as to deny reasonable safeguards to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Appellants each attempted to alight from a departing bus.” And. while upholding the validity of R. III of the Constitution. and may be lawfully searched and seized by law enforcement authorities. are not unreasonable searches per se. considering that port personnel are not necessarily law enforcers. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons’ right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. They may be deemed to have abandoned the box in their flight. 6. Breis. People v. the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. both should be considered agents of government under Article III of the Constitution. Could to a complaint .” Further. 779 SCRA 34 (2016) On searches conducted in ports. the Court pointed out: “A further point. In fact. abandoned articles. Moreover. A thing is considered abandoned and possession thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope of recovery) is gone and the animus revertendi (the intention of returning) is finally given up. No. not Yumol.” 5. effect search and seizure . theOf Liberties accused vis-à-vis in was entrapped An Arsenal regard Of Armsfor extortion. 2. “The bus is public transportation. although their flight was thwarted by the PDEA agents. . in regard to leaving things behind. Worse still.” A Library In the case of Dela Cruz. although done without search warrants.” In this regard. The actions of port personnel during routine security checks at ports have the color of a state-related function. (2) the search is for the enforcement of customs law. there is no objectionable warrantless search and seizure of the box of marijuana abandoned in the bus by appellants. are allowed when “persons exercising police authority under the customs law . The expectation of privacy in relation to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus is not the same as that in a person’s dwelling. as exception to the requirement of a valid search warrant. Indeed. . 570 SCRA 410 (2008). the Court distinguished consented searches from customs search. are considered bona vacantia. declared unconstitutional such drug testing for those charged with crimes punishable by more than six years’ imprisonment. Dela Cruz v.” Thus. TheB AR R Court EVIEW held 2017 then that “[t]o impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution. People.” The requirements for a valid customs search are: (1) the person conducting the search is exercising police authority under customs law. and the search of moving vehicles has been upheld. such as those thrown away.” The Court also held that “[w]hile there is a distinction between port personnel and port police officers in this case. the Court. contrary to the R B G stated objectives of RA 9165. only the bus was being searched. That appellants got up to leave a departing bus without bringing their box points to the absence of both spes recuperandi and animus revertendi. Dangerous REVIEW CENTER Board. and (3) the place searched is not a dwelling place or house. Abandonment has the effect of converting a thing into res nullius. People. Art. . “[i]n the United States. Updates and Teasers Page 26 of 99 4.A.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. or their belongings. 9165’s mandatory random and suspicionless drug testing of students and employees. both appellants intended to leave the box behind without returning for it. and is open to the public. Breis. S. in paternity suits.S. To overextend the application of this provision would run counter to our pronouncement in Social Justice Society v. They require “piercing the skin”and extract a part of the subjects’s body. ___ (No. 3 June 2013) In this case. on the so-called implied consent laws which require drivers to submit to blood alcohol concentration (BAC) tests. The U. Thus. 23 June 2016) Could a person arrested for drunk driving be made to undergo a warrantless breath test or taking of a blood sample? The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Supreme Court held that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody. (See Lucas v. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law. but also to impose criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to such a test.” Otherwise. is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime. And. a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. like fingerprinting and photographing.” The Court explained that “‘[a] person apprehended or arrested’ cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with R. 569 U. 9165. ___R EVIEW (No. before a man may be required to A requiring undergo such a test. ___ (No. 12-207. North Dakota.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 9165. the Court said that its prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply. The same could not be said about blood tests. Maryland v. The accused was then charged with that crime. Lucas. Updates and Teasers Page 27 of 99 he be forced to undergo drug testing? The Court said. Why the difference? Breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns. During the processing of his case through a facility.S.and second-degree assault charges. King was arrested on first.” 7. not only under R.S. However. it is another matter for a State not only to insist upon an intrusive blood test. Birchfield v.” BAR 9. booking personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act). 23 January 2012) This case illustrates once more the adjustments and adaptations that would have to be done in regard R B G to constitutional guarantees applied in relation to modern law-enforcement amenities. to make the “phrase ‘a person apprehended or arrested’ in Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts. 565 U.A. King. . taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is. Jones. Supreme Court held that the attachment of such a 81 DNA testing is also subject to the requirement of reasonableness. The physical intrusion is almost negligible. 650 SCRA 667 [2011]) . but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R. “There must be a limit JURISTS to the consequences to which motorists may beR EVIEW deemed CENTER to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads. the one Library himOf Liberties to do vis-à-vis so must be able to present An primaArsenal OforArms facie evidence establish a reasonable possibility of paternity. He was eventually convicted for the rape in spite of his move to suppress the DNA match on Fourth Amendment grounds. and thus are more significantly more intrusive than blowing into a tube. such as Global Position System (GPS) tracking device.S.A. The DNA matched an unsolved 2003 rape. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. NO! “The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act. 579 U.81 8. 9165 but for all other crimes. .A. . The U. 14-1468. United States v. 2017 10-1259. The case also discussed some legal developments relative to the Fourth Amendment protection. in general. 83 See also the Writ of Amparo.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. was named by the Philippine National Police as among those A Library OftoLiberties vis-à-vis(22An Arsenal Of Arms 82 Effective 2 February 2008. S. the phrase ‘in their persons. The “habeas data rule. . our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass. information. pursuant the A. “the writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked BARorRdoubtful. discussed in relation to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Reliefs may include the enjoining of the act complained of. . 351 (1967). home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. In Katz v. collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person. is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image. 533 U. liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided under prevailing Rules. at least until the latter half of the 20th century. Writ of Habeas Data To provide further protection to the people against assaults on their right to privacy. a town mayor. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.82 This is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life. Our later cases have applied the analysis of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in that case. It is also said that it is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an “effect” as that term is used in the Amendment. “The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property. Updates and Teasers Page 28 of 99 device to an individual’s vehicle. 27. It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo. houses. . . Chan. Gamboa v. United States.M. 677 SCRA 385 (2012) The petitioner. liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology. privacy. thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life. the Court held that the writ could not be used to thwart the exercise of management prerogative to transfer employees. to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances. papers. and freedom of information of an individual.” Further. No. Our later cases. 347. 438 (1928). or the deletion. 277 U. 389 U. 632 SCRA 195 (2010). which said that a violation occurs when government officers violate a person's ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’.’ and found a violation in attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth. United States. since otherwise it would have referred simply to ‘the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures’. and effects’ would have been superfluous. have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach. we held that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on the public streets did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because ‘[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants. destruction. . family.” R B G 11. 08-1-16-SC January 2008). S. Its intent is to address violations ofJURISTS or threatsRtoEVIEW CENTER the rights to life. habeas data was conceived as a response. of course. in Olmstead v. and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets. or rectification of the erroneous data or information. S. 31 (2001).’” 10. liberty and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. Lim. United States. . we said that ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people. Consistent with this understanding. Kyllo v. honor. in support of the petitions therefor are vague 2017 EVIEWEmployment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution. Thus. the Supreme Court has also come up with the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data. not places. given the lack of effective and available remedies. or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering.83 In Manila Electric Company v. liberty or security. the Court pointed out that “[t]he notion of informational privacy is still developing in Philippine law and jurisprudence. privacy. and (e) restraining respondents from making baseless reports. B84ARin R EVIEW which 2017balanced the right of citizens to be free the ECHR from interference in their private affairs with the right of the state to protect its national security. The Supreme Court held that an individual’s right to privacy must be balanced with the government’s interests. (c) rectification of the damage done to her honor. Portions of the confidential report were leaked to the press and Gamboa was mentioned in both broadcast and print media. Sweden. “the state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa.” R B G A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 84 26 March 1987. which is to investigate the existence of PAGs with the ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. (d) ordering respondents to refrain from forwarding unverified reports against her.” As for the writ of habeas data. . She claimed that she was publicly tagged as someone who maintains a PAG on the basis of the unverified information that the PNP-Ilocos Norte gathered and forwarded to the Zeñarosa Commission. and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. and freedom of information of an individual. 9 EHRR 433. a body created by then President Arroyo to investigate the existence of PAGs with a view to eliminating them before the 10 May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the future. Of particular note is Leander v. information. the Court came up also with edifying elucidations. Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed. honor. and if the latter is of legitimate. liberty or security on the other. JURISTS Considering that even the Latin American REVIEW habeas data. this Court can be guided by cases on the protection of personal data decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 275 creating the Zeñarosa Commission “articulates a legitimate state aim.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. finds its origins from the European tradition of data protection. It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted. Said the Court: “The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image. as well as her supporters and other people identified with her. she then sought a writ of habeas data seeking the following reliefs: (a) destruction of the unverified reports from the PNP Ilocos Norte database. taking note of the novelty of the remedy. and that her malicious or reckless inclusion in the list also made her. (b) withdrawal of all information forwarded to higher PNP officials. Updates and Teasers Page 29 of 99 maintaining a private army or PAG (Private Army Group) in a report it submitted to the Zeñarosa Commission. susceptible to harassment and police surveillance operations. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself.” Then. especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate.” the Court proceeded to hold that “the forwarding of information by the PNP to the Zeñarosa Commission was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in life. then the individual’s claim to privacy must give way. onCwhich ENTER our own Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data is rooted. overriding and compelling importance. and the right to life.” After noting that the issuance of Administrative Order No. In this particular instance. there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand. The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious groups. they availed of the remedy of habeas data.A. or electronic eavesdropping. collecting. of more immediate concern is the convenience – and danger – in the use of the internet and cell phones. or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her correspondences. overhearing by means of a telephone extension is not covered by R. for any other reason or even for no reason atBall. Such individual or entity need not be in the business of collecting or storing data. 347 (1967) 86 Zulueta v. Court A Library 248 Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 88 of Appeals. Court of Appeals. so held the Court in Gaanan v. collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. 145 SCRA 112 1986). United States. . wiretapping. privacy and Online Social Networks. 1.86 Related to privacy of communications is the Anti-Wiretapping Act (R. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. (But nowadays. which when not previously authorized by a judge. or demanded by exigencies. graduating high school students which had revealing picture posts – scantily clad – in Facebook cost them their participation in the commencement exercises. Court of Appeals. It has likewise been held that this constitutional protection is available even in highly personal relationships. 313 SCRA 153 (1999) . 4200) which the Court has declared as prohibiting the secret recording of conversations either through wiretapping87 or tape recorders. No. Theresa’s College. Intermediate Appellate Court. Court of Appeals. pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.S. an intrusion into one’s sacred private precincts. In the process of resolving the issue. 4200.S. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS Even without the explicit guarantee of the privacy of communications and correspondence in the U. . and is in the nature of a personal endeavour.” R B G 85 See Katz v. 389 U. Spying on a person’s correspondence is also a form of unwarranted incursion into his private world. Claiming that their right to privacy was violated.88 However. SCRA 590 (1995) 89 Navarro v. It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. with the proliferation of cellphones. What matters is thatJthe URISTS REVIEW person or Cbe entity must ENTER gathering. as when one pursues a business.’ It is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering. who still needs a telephone extension?) Now. The Court stressed that habeas data “was designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age. St.A. ARisR EVIEW and immaterial 2017such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. would be considered unreasonable and thus violative of a person’s right to be left and let alone. . 253 SCRA 699 (1996) 87 Salcedo-Ortañez v.89 Also. the same must be with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. the same privilege was still considered available. or about his or her family. the Court provided a sort of a tour into the concept of habeas data. Constitution.85 This is because. this does not apply if the conversation is not intended to be private. Updates and Teasers Page 30 of 99 F. such as an altercation where the participants do not really care who are listening. This means that whenever a recording is made of one’s conversations. however. 235 SCRA 111 (1994) Ramirez v. is also a form of a seizure. such as in marital spats between Lothario-husbands and raging jealous wives. Vivares v. 737 SCRA 92 (2014) The Court asked: “The question now though is up to what extent is the right to privacy protected in OSNs [online social networks]?” In this case. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. among others. of the R B G user’s invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. In his or her bulletin board. and photos. Facebook extends its users an avenue to make the availability of their Facebook activities reflect their choice as to ‘when and to what extent to disclose facts about [themselves] – and to put others in the position of receiving such confidences. respondents’ contention that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook would. such is not the case. to music and videos –– access to which would depend on whether he or she allows one.’ the contents of which are under the control of each and every user. including the one involved in the case at bar. It is akin to having a room filled with millions of personal bulletin boards or ‘walls. it is first necessary that said user. people use ‘to stay connected with friends and family. in cyber world. Updates and Teasers Page 31 of 99 As for the concept of privacy. to discover what’s going on in the world.” The Court concluded: “Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is ‘Public. “[b]riefly. what is relevant to the case at bar is the right to informational privacy –– usually defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves. designed to set up barriers to broaden or limit the visibility of his or her specific profile content. The Common Right to Privacy. Puno’s speech.” And what is the relevance of the privacy settings to the case? “Without these privacy settings. utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation.” As for online networks. which. And this intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s privacy tools. to pictures. and (3) decisional privacy. among others.’ it can be surmised that the photographs A LibraryinOf question were viewable Liberties vis-à-vistoAneveryone on Facebook. “The foregoing are privacy tools. Of the three. Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity.’ Ideally. from another user’s point of view. coupled with the opposing need to withhold certain information as well as to regulate the spreading of his or her personal information. manifest the intention to keep certain posts private. where he explained the three strands of the right to privacy. however. This evolution was briefly recounted in former Chief Justice Reynato S. With the availability of numerous avenues for information gathering and data sharing nowadays. Since gaining popularity. In other words. not to mention each system’s inherent vulnerability to attacks and intrusions. Arsenal Of Armsabsent any proof that petitioners’ children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph. It is through the availability of said privacy tools that many OSN users are said to have a subjective expectation that only those to whom they grant access to their profile will view the information they post or upload thereto. the selected setting will be based on one’s desire to interact with others. photos. and to share and express what matters to them. If such were the case. through the employment BARofRmeasures EVIEW 2017 to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. they cannot . a user/owner can post anything –– from text. viz: (1) locational or situational privacy. according to its developers. be correct. greatly evolved. in this case the children of petitioners. it noted. does JURISTS Rhas not mean that any Facebook user automatically EVIEW CENTER a protected expectation of privacy in all of his or her Facebook activities. some or all of the other users to see his or her posts. (2) informational privacy. the OSN phenomenon has paved the way to the creation of various social networking sites. the purpose of an OSN is precisely to give users the ability to interact and to stay connected to other members of the same or different social media platform through the sharing of statuses. videos. it “has. through time. in context. This.’” Facebook. has provided for different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessability of a user’s profile as well as information uploaded by user. depending on the services provided by the site.facebook. www. available to Facebook users.com (Facebook). statuses. In other words. there is more reason that every individual’s right to control said flow of information should be protected and that each individual should have at least a reasonable expectation of privacy in cyberspace. However. with technological advancements having an influential part therein. However. if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems. respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook friends who showed the pictures to school officials. A feature Encryption is a security Library Of modern that some Liberties vis-à-vis cell phones An to use in addition Arsenal Of Arms password protection.” The justification for physical searches incident to lawful arrest – officer safety and evidence preservation – could not be extended to search of digital data in cell phones.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. there remain more targeted ways to address those concerns. lies with the friends of the minors. if indiscriminately circulated. there can be no quibbling that the images in question. Updates and Teasers Page 32 of 99 invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy.S. “[d]igital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. circumstances suggesting that a defendant’s 90 R B G Remote wiping occurs when a phone. This can happen when a third party sends a remote signal or when a phone is preprogrammed to delete data upon entering or leaving certain geographic areas (so-called “geofencing”). . the photos of minor students scantily clad. as a rule. Riley v. Second.” For one. 25 June 2014) May the police. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. REVIEW officers law enforcement CENTER can turn the phone off or remove its battery. . place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. Clearly. is no. . If the police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation. Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their protected zone of privacy. the records are bereft of any evidence. Cell phones implicate extensive privacy interests which necessitate the guiding hand of a warrant. if any. There are at least two simple ways to do this: J URISTS First. 13–132.” Moreover. — for example. 573 U. without a warrant. The Court concluded: “In sum.” 2. . are personal in nature. law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. data on the phone can endanger no one. as to remote wiping. other than bare assertions that they utilized Facebook’s privacy settings to make the photos visible only to them or to a select few. ___ (No. likely to affect. they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves.” As for evidence destruction unique to digital data – remote wiping and data encryption90 – the Court held: “In any event. It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy to ‘Friends’ is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content. “Cell phones. Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats. or to be more precise. data becomes protected by sophisticated encryption that renders a phone all but “unbreakable” unless police know the password. The Court reminded everyone again that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness’” and that “[w]here a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing. the reputation of the minors enrolled in a conservative institution. . Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon — say. they cannot now insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question. search digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrested person? The answer. “[t]o BAR the extent that law enforcement still has REVIEW specific 2017 concerns about the potential loss of evidence in a particular case. receives a signal that erases stored data. however. the fault. connected to a wireless network. They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search. .” The long and short of it – even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends. California. When such phones lock. reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant. . or even earlier. First.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. tape recorders. rolodexes. calendars. locations. A person might carry in his pocket a slip of paper reminding him to call Mr. the Court came up with the following observations: “The United States asserts that a search of all data stored on a cell phone is ‘materially indistinguishable’ from searches of these sorts of physical items. as would routinely be kept on a phone. . exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on . people did not typically carry a cache of sensitive personal information with them as they went about their day. but any extension of that reasoning to digital data has to rest on its own bottom. Updates and Teasers Page 33 of 99 phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt — they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately. diaries. Now it is the person who is not carrying a cell phone. albums. We expect that the gulf between physical practicability and digital capacity will only continue to widen in the future. maps. or hundreds of videos. “the possible intrusion on privacy is not physically limited in the same way when it comes to cell phones. . That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. a cell phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. . or newspapers.” While it is true that a person arrested has a reduced privacy interests. but little else justifies lumping them together. . R B G Prior to the digital age. . a video — that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Third.” In this regard. The term ‘cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand. . televisions.” Moreover. video players. Not every search ‘is acceptable solely because a person is in custody. a prescription. The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeled with dates. thousands of pictures.’” Just to illustrate the wide difference between digital contents and physical objects. . Of Armsby contrast. a search of a person was limited by physical realities and tended as a general matter to constitute only a narrow intrusion on privacy. A conclusion that inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself may make sense as applied to physical items. consider these: “Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. “[t]he storage capacity of cell phones has several interrelated consequences for privacy. still “[t]he fact that an arrestee has diminished privacy interests does not mean that the Fourth Amendment falls out of the picture entirely. there is an element of pervasiveness that characterizes cell phones but not physical records. a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information — an address. The current top-selling smart phone has a standard capacity of 16 gigabytes (and is available with up to 64 gigabytes). Second. They could just as easily be called cameras.” And. many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. who is the exception. implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack. Jones for the past several months. BAR REVIEW 2017 “Finally. Sixteen gigabytes translates to millions of pages of text. a bank statement. One of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cell phones is their immense storage capacity. or a purse. Before cell phones. . if only to remind everyone of the world that we keep in our phones. it is no . and descriptions. . a wallet. with all that it contains. as a category.R the data onC EVIEW a ENTER phone can date back to the purchase of the phone. A decade ago police officers searching an arrestee might have occasionally stumbled A Library across a Of Liberties highly personalvis-à-vis item suchAnas aArsenal diary. . Both are ways of getting from point A to point B. Today. a note. he would not carry a record of all his communications with Mr. . the same cannot be said of a photograph or JURISTS two of loved ones tucked into a wallet. Jones. libraries. Modern cell phones. .” As for apps. even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Learned Hand observed (in an opinion later quoted in Chimel) that it is ‘a totally different thing to search a man’s pockets and use against him what they contain. “[m]odern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. .” Sounds so personal and familiar? R B G A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms . in addition. that is no longer true.” How then is the government to response to criminal enterprise facilitated or enhanced by the use of cell phones? “We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime.’ not merely ‘an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency. JURISTS With all they contain and all they may reveal. As a reminder to everyone. which together can form a revealing montage of the user’s life. is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search. apps for planning your budget. .’ . other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a particular phone” such as the exigent circumstances exception. Indeed. it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search. religious. apps for improving your romantic life.” How has the world been transformed in the relatively few years? “In 1926. The average smart phone user has installed 33 apps. a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home. Updates and Teasers Page 34 of 99 their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives — from the mundane to the intimate. even though the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones. apps for sharing prayer requests. . Recent technological advances similar to those discussed here have. Our holding. it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form — unless the phone is. apps for alcohol. Privacy comes at a cost. drug. professional. from ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him. Moreover. . however. political. If his pockets contain a cell phone. of course. Our answer to the question of what police must do beforeB AR REVIEW searching 2017 a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant. . There are over a million apps available in each of the two major app stores. Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is ‘an important working part of our machinery of government. apps for tracking pregnancy symptoms. apps for every conceivable hobby or pastime. R EVIEW they Cmany hold for ENTER Americans ‘the privacies of life. There are apps for Democratic Party news and Republican Party news.’ . comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial. . “GPS monitoring generates a precise. they “offer a range of tools for managing detailed information about all aspects of a person’s life. and sexual associations. . and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. and gambling addictions. the phrase ‘there’s an app for that’ is now part of the popular lexicon. There are popular apps for buying or selling just about anything. made the process of obtaining a warrant itself more efficient.’ . and the records of such transactions may be accessible on the phone indefinitely. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises. . or mobile application software.” And talking of one’s whereabouts. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The right to speak one’s mind freely is a highly valued freedom in a republican and democratic society. chances are it would only be allowing the free flow of information that would be favorable to itself. Otherwise. The rule on privileged communications had its genesis not in the nation’s penal code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. only those which are clearly outside the scope of free expression may be subject to sanctions. then they should rightfully determine the fate of the nation. or so the philosophy of this freedom suggests. The authorities are supposed to let the people decide what is good for them and the government. If the government had its way. but BAR REVIEW 2017 1 “Freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in the hierarchy of constitutional rights. People. 354 of the Revised Penal Code is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged.” (Lopez v.”2 Parenthetically. Thus. this guarantee basically prohibits the State from exercising prior restraint or censorship.S. Macapagal-Arroyo. a government that is not afraid of its own shadow should have no problem dealing with people’s plaints. And here. the press is at the forefront of expression. In this regard.6 Indeed. But they can only do the same if they are free to know and learn and to discuss matters unfettered by restrictions placed on them by the government. freedom to speak unhindered may become a trap if a punishment so eagerly awaits a few steps away. comments or criticisms. and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 535 U. 642 SCRA 668 [2011]) R B G 2 Ashcroft v. and not simply be given a sanitized version. it has been said that the enumeration under Art.4 In keeping with the underlying rationale for the freedom. One that sees sinister plots in every group action. In the process. the freedom also means a corresponding check on subsequent punishment.5 It has also been held that the civic duty to see to it that public duty is discharged faithfully is inconsistent with requirements placing on citizens the burden of proving good motives and justifiable ends in airing their plaints. not the other way around. More than a hundred years ago. 301 SCRA (1999) 6 Vasquez v. “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. and that sovereignty resides in them. Court of Appeals.”3 Without the mass media to broadcast and propagate a person’s ideas or speech. Court of Appeals. it would be filtering and managing the news and information that are to guide or influence the people in making their decisions. If the people are to decide.1 If the people are really to be the source of power. it would be more like flowers born to blush unseen. there is the concept of privileged communications which exempts the person communicating from prosecution. 489 SCRA 160 (2006) 4 See Thomas Gray’s Elegy Written on a Country Churchyard A Library Of 1Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 5 Borjal v. Updates and Teasers Page 35 of 99 G. 234 (2002) 3 David v. Free Speech Coalition. for without it dissemination could hardly be had. The right to think is the beginning of freedom. wasting their sweetness in the desert air. it was observed: “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form. they must be allowed access to all available ideas and information. At the same time. one which employs force to prevent people from knowing about skeletons in the closets may soon be hiding real skeletons if not checked at the earliest opportunity. one that gives strange meanings to JURISTS REVIEW CENTER ordinary words. The interplay of thoughts in the free and open market place of ideas provides the best means by which the interest of society could be achieved. 314 SCRA 460 (1999) .“The best gauge of a free and democratic society rests in the degree of freedom enjoyed by its media. pointedAoutLibrary Of recognized that the “Court Liberties falsevis-à-vis or misleadingAn Arsenal advertisement Of Armsexpression only in October as unprotected 2007. 236 (1968). it must next be determined whether the state regulation directly advances the government interest asserted. Chief Justice Puno. the asserted governmental interest must be substantial. discussed the concepts of facial challenge and overbreadth. citing Boyd. United States. yes. No. The advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes properly falls within the ambit of the term commercial speech – that is. 2006-0012 (RIRR) should be struck down. Public Service Commission. and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. that the advertisement of such products which are strictly informative cuts too deep on free speech. needing only a slight push or whiff of air to send us plummeting into the abyss? While the guarantee of freedom of expression has at its core political speech.”8 Do we really know how to learn from the past?9 Or is it much easier to go along with our indolent and careless ways to follow the path of least resistance. This is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. until we realize we are already at the edge of the precipice. including commercial speech.” . 545 SCRA 441 (2008). and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest. Gonzales.S. Allen.”7 Or. G S George Santayana 10 In his separate opinion in Chavez v. Next.J. speech that proposes an economic transaction.S. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy. Duque III. for instance. in his concurring opinion wrote: “I write to elucidate another reason why the absolute ban on the advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes found under Sections 4(f) and 11 of A. R B Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. overarching ban. It ought to be self-evident. and leads to gradual depreciation of the right. explaining that a facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. namely.S.O. 447 U. Updates and Teasers Page 36 of 99 illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way. dissenting in Board of Education v.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. in the words of Justice Black.” So what would all these lead to? “I proffer the humble view that the absolute ban on advertising prescribed under Sections 4(f) and 11 of the RIRR is unduly restrictive and is more than necessary to further the avowed governmental interest of promoting the health of infants and young children. the commercial speech must ‘concern lawful activity and not be misleading” if it is to be protected under the First Amendment. Justice Carpio. 535 SCRA 265 (2007).” Any parameters for commercial speech protection? Well. If both of these requirements are met. C. Puno made reference to the four-part analysis of Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. 116 U. 616 (1886) 8 9 392 U. The laudable concern of the respondent for the promotion of the health of infants and young children cannot justify the absolute. “it nearly is always by insidious approaches that the citadels of liberty are most successfully attacked. 557 (1980): “To begin with. In Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. The theory is that “[w]hen BAR REVIEW 2017 statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for 7 Boyd v. Sandiganbayan. confident in our own safety and welfare.”10 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER Estrada v. it also spreads its wings to cover other forms of speech. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen. referring to Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association. 369 SCRA 394 (2001). the benefits and costs. were arrested while they were exercising their right to peaceful assembly. the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of BP 880 were mere afterthought. seek to regulate only ‘spoken words’ and again.. Oregon. if entertained at all. Updates and Teasers Page 37 of 99 rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution. Jr. . of course. It may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from the government authorities except. The Court said: “‘Assembly’ means a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs.” The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of the inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. if the assembly is intended to be held in a public place. the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that ‘reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful. “[T]he overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing ‘on their faces’ statutes in free speech cases. .R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. i.” Assembly is also a form of expression. have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct. a permit for the use of such place. Thus. it was held that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime. et al. may be validly required. Disini.’ and is ‘generally disfavored. Even the Solicitor General. the right to assemble is not subject to previous restraint or censorship.’ The reason for this is obvious. by their terms. failed to justify the arresting officers’ conduct. In this regard. EVIEW 2017 237 (2014) and 723 SCRA 109 (2014) Issues were raised against the constitutionality of the various provisions of Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R. the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity. in other situations not before the Court. 489 SCRA 160 (2006). Among the highlights from the ruling: R B G Cyberspace. Embedded in the traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person to whom a law may be applied will not be heard to challenge a law on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others. In other words. constitutionally unprotected conduct. Macapagal-Arroyo. much less denied.’ . It is a necessary consequence of our republican institution and complements the right of speech. v. the pronouncements of the Court in David v.’ . . They were not committing any crime. and not for the assembly itself.A. As can be gleaned from circumstances. David v. insurrection and rebellion are considered ‘harmful’ and ‘constitutionally unprotected conduct. [F]acial invalidation of laws is considered as ‘manifestly strong medicine. The Court upheld some provisions but struck down others. that ‘overbreadth claims. are also enlightening. claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which. The ringing truth here is that petitioner David. neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger that warranted the limitation of that right. like other rights embraced in the freedom of expression. this right is not to be limited.” The Court also noted: “Moreover. . also spoke of such concepts. As in the case of freedom of expression. In De Jonge v. . Arms cyberspace is a boon to . also known under the American Law as First Amendment cases. lawless violence.” JURISTS REVIEW CENTER BAR716RSCRA 1.’ to be used ‘sparingly and only as a last resort. No. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. .’ Undoubtedly. Macapagal-Arroyo. 10175). during the oral argument. Secretary of Justice. . Cyberspace is “a system that accommodates millions and billions of simultaneous andAongoing Library Of Liberties individual accessesvis-à-vis An to and uses of Arsenal OfThe the internet.e. ” Cybersquatting.” How about the danger of suppressing the work of ethical hackers? No problem. But the Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Vandalism and Overbreadth Doctrine. But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. or race as well as other fundamental rights. like speech. a proper governmental purpose. or the right to be let alone. useful in determining the constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of things or persons. it ruled that the right to privacy A Library exists Of Liberties independently vis-à-vis An of its identification Arsenal with liberty. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism.” Levels of Scrutiny. moreover. an in terrorem effect or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper.” Data Interference. as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. without right. There is no freedom to destroy other people’s computer systems and private documents.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. or deletion of identifying information belonging to another.” On Illegal Access and “Ethical Hackers. a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional. gender.” BAR REVIEW 2017 Privacy and Identity Theft. have of course an inherent chilling effect. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 4(a)(6) on ground of denial of equal protection is baseless. and deprive others from registering the same.” “In the cases before it. Mutuc. was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. the Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom. use. “The right to privacy. or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful opportunity of registering the same. the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others. “The law is reasonable in penalizing him for acquiring the domain name in bad faith to profit. “Ethical hackers evaluate the target system’s security and report back to the owners the vulnerabilities they found in it and give instructions for how these can be remedied. the strict scrutiny standard was used to assess the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech. alteration. may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly. But all is not well with the system since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. in this case their computer data. destroy JURISTS REVIEW CENTER reputation. It is a universally condemned conduct. “Under the overbreadth doctrine. Later. “The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny standard. an American constitutional construct. transfer. “[a]ll penal laws. like the cybercrime law. Ethical hackers are the equivalent of independent auditors who come into an organization to verify its bookkeeping records. constitutionally subject to state regulation. Updates and Teasers Page 38 of 99 the need of the current generation for greater information and facility of communication. destroy the reputation. Of it isArms in itself fully deserving of . is involved in punishing what is essentially a condemnable act – accessing the computer system of another without right. The burden is on the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.” And. whether R B G natural or juridical. Computer-related Identity Theft is the intentional acquisition. misuse. mislead. mislead. thereby invading the area of protected freedoms. electronic document. According to this standard. possession. Cyber-squatting is the acquisition of domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit. or electronic data message. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 39 of 99 constitutional protection.” In this connection, “[i]n assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.” Now, how about the application of the law in this regard? “[T]he charge of invalidity of this section based on the overbreadth doctrine will not hold water since the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into guaranteed freedoms like speech. Clearly, what this section regulates are specific actions: the acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal identifying data of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire another’s personal data.” Also, the Court pointed out: “Evidently, the theft of identity information must be intended for an illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and disseminating information made public by the user himself cannot be regarded as a form of theft. The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. As such, the press, whether in quest of news reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear since a special circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is required by this Section.” Cybersex. Cybersex, or the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration. Would not the law, as written, invite law enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of married couples or consenting individuals? No, “the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of Congress on this section of the Cybercrime Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to penalize a ‘private showing x x x between and among two private persons x x x although that may be a form of obscenity to some.’ The understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime law is that the element of ‘engaging in a business’ is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex. The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam.” And the Court added, “[i]n any event, consenting adults are protected by the wealth of jurisprudence delineating the bounds of obscenity. The Court will not declare Section 4(c)(1) unconstitutional where it stands a construction that makes it apply only to persons engaged in the business of maintaining, controlling, or operating, directly or indirectly, the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer system as Congress has intended.” Child Pornography. “It seems that the above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory, nothing prevents the government from invoking the ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child pornography using a computer system.” Spam and Commercial Speech. JURISTS REVIEW Unsolicited CENTER Commercial Communications or spam11 is the transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services. “To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read B hisAR REVIEW emails, 2017 commercial ads addressed to him. even unsolicited Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to R B G protection. The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed 11 “The term ‘spam’ surfaced in early internet chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One who repeats the same sentence or A Library comment was said to be making a ‘spam.’ Of Liberties The term referred tovis-à-vis AnFlying a Monty Python’s Arsenal Of Arms Circus scene in which actors would keep saying ‘Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam’ when reading options from a menu.” R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 40 of 99 freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.” Cyberlibel. This would refer to the commission of libel through a computer system. The Court held that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. And, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel.” “But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print. The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style. In a sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users.” Aiding or Abetting Commission of Cybercrime. Here, one has to differentiate between the usual and traditional means of aiding or abetting from its commission through the internet. “Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a person aids or abets another in destroying a forest, smuggling merchandise into the country, or interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers, his action is essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience. But, when it comes to certain cybercrimes, the waters are muddier and the line of sight is somewhat blurred. The idea of ‘aiding or abetting’ wrongdoings online threatens the heretofore popular and unchallenged dogmas of cyberspace use.” And the Court went on to elucidate how easy it would be to get trapped under the law if it were to be understood in its traditional non-internet application. “If the post is made available to the public, meaning to everyone and not only to his friends, anyone on Facebook can react to the posting, clicking any of several buttons of preferences on the program’s screen such as ‘Like,’ ‘Comment,’ or ‘Share.’ ‘Like’ signifies that the reader likes the posting while ‘Comment’ enables him to post online his feelings or views about the same, such as ‘This is great!’ When a Facebook user ‘Shares’ a posting, the original ‘posting’ will appear on his own Facebook profile, consequently making it visible to his down-line Facebook Friends. Twitter, on the other hand, is an internet social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read short text-based messages of up to 140 characters. These are known as ‘Tweets.’ Microblogging is the practice of posting small pieces of digital content – which could be in the form of text, pictures, links, short videos, or other media – on the internet. Instead of friends, a Twitter user has ‘Followers,’ those who subscribe to this particular user’s posts, enabling them to read the same, and ‘Following,’ those whomJURISTS REVIEW this particular CENTER user is subscribed to, enabling him to read their posts. Like Facebook, a Twitter user can make his tweets available only to his Followers, or to the general public. If a post is available to the public, any Twitter user can ‘Retweet’ a given posting. BAR another Retweeting is just reposting or republishing REVIEW 2017tweet without the need of copying and person’s pasting it. In the cyberworld, there are many actors: a) the blogger who originates the assailed statement; b) the blog service provider like Yahoo; c) the internet service provider like PLDT, Smart, Globe, or Sun; R B G d) the internet café that may have provided the computer used for posting the blog; e) the person who makes a favorable comment on the blog; and f) the person who posts a link to the blog site.” Then the Court A Library the considered Ofpeculiarities Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal of the internet and onlineOf Armsrelative to the crime postings R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes, Updates and Teasers Page 41 of 99 of cyberlibel. “The question is: are online postings such as ‘Liking’ an openly defamatory statement, ‘Commenting’ on it, or ‘Sharing’ it with others, to be regarded as ‘aiding or abetting?’ . . . Besides, it is not clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world is a crime.” Then, it noted that “in the complex world of cyberspace expressions of thoughts, when will one be liable for aiding or abetting cybercrimes? Where is the venue of the crime? Except for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment and Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting. Will they be liable for aiding or abetting? And, considering the inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or thousands of responding ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ in the criminal charge to be filed in court, who will make a choice as to who should go to jail for the outbreak of the challenged posting? The old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole when applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature crafts a cyber libel law that takes into account its unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the millions that use this new medium of communication in violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression.” What then? Well, you can penalize certain conduct but it should not sweep too broadly. If it does, it would be a lesser evil to let the conduct go unpunished than sacrifice more important freedoms. “Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news. Moreover, cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and friends, evoking from mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose, which seeks to regulate the use of this cyberspace communication technology to protect a person’s reputation and peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and broadly sweep, invading the area of protected freedoms. If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms ‘aiding or abetting’ constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes ‘aiding or abetting’ libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.” Facial Challenge and As Applied Challenges. “When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable.” On the other hand, “[i]n an ‘as applied’ challenge, the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise any constitutional ground – absence of due process, lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable standards, overbreadth, or vagueness. Here, one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if JURISTS he asserts a violation of his own rights. REVIEW It prohibits CENTER one from assailing the constitutionality of the statute based solely on the violation of the rights of third persons not before the court. This rule is also known as the prohibition against third-party standing. But this rule admits of exceptions. A petitioner may for instance mount a ‘facial’ challenge to the BAR REVIEW 2017 constitutionality of a statute even if he claims no violation of his own rights under the assailed statute where it involves free speech on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness of the statute. The rationale for this exception is to counter the ‘chilling effect’ on protected R B G speech that comes from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence.” And, relating it to the internet, “theAcyberspace Library Ofis anLiberties vis-à-vis incomparable, Anmedium pervasive Arsenal Of Arms of communication. It is inevitable magnetic or any other means. Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same offense. The two offenses. digital. formal crimes such as libel are not punishable unless consummated. will generate enmity and tension between social or economic groups. Section 5. it will destroy relationships and. As previously discussed. races. Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery. under certain circumstances.’ Thus. said to be libelous. Indeed. A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms mechanical. “With the exception of the crimes of online libel and online child pornography. “Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography. Allowed to cascade in the internet. What is more. charging the offender under both . one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R. the particularly complex web of interaction on social media websites would give law enforcers such latitude that they could arbitrarily or selectively enforce the law. or religions. libel destroys reputations that society values. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference. as amended. Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting. Online libel is different.” Aiding or Abetting Commission of Child Pornography. Section 4(b)(3) on Computer- related Identity Theft. Charging the offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of the proscription R B G against double jeopardy. optical. as the petitioners point out. is again posted JURISTS online or vice versa. In this case. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. that identical material REVIEW cannot CENTER be the subject of two separate libels. Updates and Teasers Page 42 of 99 that any government threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the medium creates a chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected freedom of expression of the great masses that use it. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications. Who is to decide when to prosecute persons who boost the visibility of a posting on the internet by liking it? Netizens are not given ‘fair notice’ or warning as to what is criminal conduct and what is lawful conduct. exacerbating existing tension in their relationships.” then that should be considered an original posting published on the internet. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level of responsibility such as in other countries. if the ‘Comment’ does not merely react to the original posting but creates an altogether new defamatory story against Armand like “He beats his wife and children.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of ‘electronic. Both the penal code and the cybercrime law clearly punish authors of defamatory publications. the OSG itself claims that online libel underBSection AR REVIEW4(c)(4) is2017 not a new crime but is one already punished under Article 353. and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. There should be no question that if the published material on print. especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. cannot stand scrutiny. Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference. Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud. Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception. in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel. When a case is filed. or special laws.A. Section 7 of the law provides that a prosecution under it shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code. the Court would rather leave the determination of the correct application of Section 7 to actual cases. The same is true with child pornography committed online. Make no mistake. “[T]he crime of aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes under Section 5 should be permitted to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access. how will the court ascertain whether or not one netizen’s comment aided and abetted a cybercrime while another comment did not? Of course.” Double Jeopardy. None of these offenses borders on the exercise of the freedom of expression.” Aiding or Abetting Other Cybercrimes. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Section 12 authorized law enforcement authorities. The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful search or seizure nor would it violate the privacy of communications and correspondence. but not content. it is within the realm of reason that the government should be able to monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to combat all sorts of cybercrimes. While it says that traffic data collection should not disclose identities or content data. the Court noted:“In this digital age. size. Those An Arsenal who post OfnoArms letters have expectations that no one will read the information appearing outside the envelope. destination. “The first question is whether or not Section 12 has a proper governmental purpose since a law may require the disclosure of matters normally considered private but then only upon showing that such requirement has a rational relation to the purpose of the law. Undoubtedly. “[I]t is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. It is akin to the use of a general search warrant that the Constitution prohibits. the State has a compelling interest in enacting the cybercrime law for there is a need to put order to the tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good. Section 19 authorizes the Department of Justice to issue an order to restrict or 12 R B G “Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin. such restraint is but an illusion. given reality presently.” Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. Admittedly. what Section 14 envisions is merely the enforcement of a duly issued court warrant.’ thus justifying a general gathering of data. duration. “[t]ransmitting communications is akin to putting a letter in an envelope properly A and addressed.” to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data12 in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system. “the authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too sweeping and lacks restraint. sealing it closed. Those who peddle child pornography could use relays of computers to mislead law enforcement authorities regarding their places of operations. and that the provision itself is narrowly drawn. Executive agencies have the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory powers. and from unregistered mobile internet connectors.” The Court also noted that in regard to traffic data.” BAR REVIEW 2017 Take-Down Clause. to extortion from certain bad elements in these agencies. nor identities. To do this.” And. worse. Evidently.” . date. nothing can prevent law enforcement agencies holding these data in their hands from looking into the identity of their sender or receiver and what the data contains. the wicked can commit cybercrimes from virtually anywhere: from internet cafés. This will unnecessarily expose the citizenry to leaked information or.” “the Court cannot draw this meaning since Section 12 does not even bother to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a particular crime. Updates and Teasers Page 43 of 99 Section 4(c)(2) and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. There are many ways the cyber criminals can quickly erase their tracks. courts should balance the legitimate concerns of the State against constitutional guarantees. a function usually lodged JURISTS REVIEW in the hands of law C ENTERto enable them to carry out their enforcers executive functions. route.” Disclosure of Computer Data. it is only realtime traffic data collection or recording and a subsequent recourse to court-issued search and seizure warrant that can succeed in ferreting them out. or type of underlying service. Due cause is also not descriptive of the purpose for which data collection will be used. Disclosure can be made only after judicial intervention. Besides. time.” However with regard to that dangerous authorization based on “due cause. Criminals using cellphones under pre-paid arrangements and with unregistered SIM cards do not have listed addresses and can neither be located nor identified. from kindred places that provide free internet services. “with due cause. ‘with due cause. that there is a compelling State interest behind the law.” In short. It just says. In assessing regulations affecting privacy rights. Library sending itOf Liberties through vis-à-vis the postal service. Restraints on free speech are generally evaluated on one of or a combination of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine. In this particular instance. Commission on Elections. Certainly not all forms of speech are protected. GMA Network.” of a candidate to effectively reach out to the electorate would unjustifiably curtail his freedom to speak as a means of connecting with the people. what the COMELEC has done is analogous to letting a bird fly after one has clipped its wings. The Court held that the new manner of determining airtime limit “is unreasonable and arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidates and political parties to reach out and communicate with the people. And. The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for being violative of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures. the adverted reason for imposing the ‘aggregate-based’ airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does not constitute a compelling state interest which would justify such a substantial restriction on the freedom of candidates and political parties to communicate their ideas. Updates and Teasers Page 44 of 99 block access to computer data when computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of the law. it is not enough for him to be of the opinion that such content violates some law. for a national candidate to really reach out to as many of the electorates as possible. what was questioned was the resolution of the Commission on Elections which computed the allowable campaign air time limit in radio and television on a nationwide total aggregate basis instead of the previous per station basis – 180 minutes for radio advertisements and 120 minutes for television. orderly. “Here. The Department of Justice order cannot substitute for judicial search warrant. however. the Government. Accordingly. in effect. seizes and places the computer data under its control and disposition without a warrant. In such a case. Inc. this can actually be made to apply in relation to any penal provision. the balancing of interest test.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. fair and credible elections. The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. There was also a question about the requirement allowing for a right to reply. declare certain kinds of expression as illegal. a task addressed to the COMELEC to provide A Library for a right to reply. It is also particularly unreasonable and whimsical to adopt the aggregate-based time limits on broadcast time when we consider that the Philippines is not only composed of so many islands. this is specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for the imposition of such a prohibitive measure. jury. It does not take into consideration any of the three tests mentioned above. “drastically curtailing the ability speech.JURISTS REVIEW then it might CENTER also be necessary that he convey his message through his advertisements in languages and dialects that the people may more readily understand and relate to. 734 SCRA 88 (2014) In this case. Here. within constitutional bounds. Section 19. and the clear and present danger rule. honest. but it also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to determine the validity of restrictions on speech. Section 19 operates as a restriction on the freedom of expression over cyberspace. Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention.” 2. and executioner all rolled into one. To add all of these airtimes in different dialects would greatly hamper the ability of such candidate to express himself – a form of suppressionB ofAR REVIEW his political 2017In short. There are also a lot of languages and dialects spoken among the citizens across the country. platforms and programs of government. Taking Section 6 into consideration. v. merely requires that the data to be blocked be found prima facie in violation of any provision of the cybercrime law. for to do so would make him judge.” R B G How about the right to reply provision? “The Constitution itself provides as part of the means to ensure free. philosophies. But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected without any judicial warrant. Given Of Liberties that express vis-à-vis constitutional AnitArsenal mandate. Of Arms could be seen that the Fundamental Law . Legislature may. Instead. taken as a whole. could the opinion of the COMELEC be assailed on freedom of expression grounds since it is not itself a statute and the constitutional provision refers to a law? “While it is true that the present petition assails not a law but an opinion by the COMELEC Law Department.” 3. with regard to political speech. and (d) demonstrably the A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms least restrictive means to achieve that object. the latter must be properly viewed in context as being necessarily made to accommodate the imperatives of fairness by giving teeth and substance to the right to reply requirement. “[r]egulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made JURISTS by personsRwho EVIEW Ccandidates are not ENTER or who do not speak as members of a political party which are. (b) reasonable. and even to inaction as a symbolic manner of communication.” Accordingly. Diocese of Bacolod v. peaceful. Updates and Teasers Page 45 of 99 itself has weighed in on the balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and the right to reply. Accordingly. taken as a whole. In fine. the constitutionally mandated desiderata of free. 747 SCRA 1 (2015) As part of the Catholic Church’s opposition to the Reproductive Health Law. applies to the entire continuum of speech from utterances made to conduct enacted. “[t]he guarantee of freedom of expression to individuals without any relationship to any political candidate should not be held hostage by the possibility of abuse by those seeking to be elected. only if what is regulated is declarative speech that. The said tarpaulin had the heading “Conscience Vote. But as noted above. the petitioners came up with a tarpaulin measuring 6’ by 10’. the Court discussed: “The right to freedom of expression. thus.” With regard to the main issue. this is not the case. additional weight should be accorded on the constitutional directive to afford a right to reply. Their arguments simplistically provide minimal importance to that constitutional command to the point of marginalizing its importance in the equation.” identifying candidates who voted for (Team Patay) or against the law (Team Buhay). has for its principal R B G object the endorsement of a candidate only. place. orderly. of expression and of the press. The COMELEC advised the petitioners to pull down the same since it violated the limitations set for campaign materials.” And. when it comes to election and the exercise of freedom of speech. If there was no such mandate. As a preliminary matter. (c) narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all candidates to be heard and considering the primary of the guarantee of free expression. one is not merely to see the equation as purely between the press and the right to reply. “the traditional notion of preferring speech and the press over so many other values of society do not readily lend itself to this particular matter. namely.” Moreover.” The petitioners standing as non-candidates was also highlighted. The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s constitutional rights. principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider during elections is unconstitutional. “Regulation of election paraphernaliaBwill REVIEW AR still 2017 be constitutionally valid if it reaches into speech of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party if they are not candidates. it declared: “Speech with political consequences is at the core of the freedom of expression and must be protected by this court.’ The Church refused and brought up this case challenging the validity of the COMELEC directive. that it should be no bigger than 2’ by 3.” Further.” Are they then completely beyond regulation? No.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. . The regulation must only be with respect to the time. The regulation (a) should be provided by law. then the submissions of petitioners may more easily commend themselves for this Court’s acceptance. and credible elections would necessarily have to be factored in trying to see where the balance lies between press and the demands of a right-to-reply. this court has applied Article III. Commission on Elections. honest. “There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private property. Instead. Section 4 of the Constitution even to governmental acts. The Court also had occasion to discuss the Captive Audience Doctrine. There are occasional heretics of yesterday that have become our visionaries. the speech can be restricted.” In fine.” On expression and the use of one’s own private property. For this purpose. as a practical matter.S. That doctrine “states that when a listener cannot. Commission on Elections. “[a] becoming humility on the part of any human institution no matter how endowed with the secular ability to decide legal controversies with finality entails that we are not the keepers of all wisdom. Supreme Court presented the gist of the case in this way: “This case presents the question R B G whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment entitles a private group to insist that a municipality permit it to place a permanent monument in a city park in which other donated monuments were previously erected. BAR555 REVIEW U. “the act of respondents in seeking to restrain petitioners from posting the tarpaulin in their own private property is an impermissible encroachments on the right to property. that although a . 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-Utak) v. it will not matter whether the speech is made with or on private property. Summum. the Court pointed out that “[f]reedom of expression can be intimately related with the right to property.” 4. 755 SCRA 441 (2015) What is in issue here is the ban on the posting of campaign materials in public transports and private transport terminals. There may be no expression when there is no place where the expression may be made. The Court held that there was an invalid content-netural regulation – it is not within the power of the COMELEC since the restriction is greater than necessary to advance government interest. Pleasant Grove City v. Likewise. 460 2017 (2009) The U. which undertakes selectively to shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others. The tarpaulin is not easily divorced from the size of the medium. Such selective restrictions have been upheld onlyJwhen URISTS REVIEW the speaker CENTER intrudes on the privacy of the home or the degree of captivity makes it either impossible or impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure. In no situation may the speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its content.” In other words. Moreover.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Humanity’s lack of omniscience. with regard to form and substance.” The Court also saw the tarpaulins as a form of satire of political parties. something that is similarly protected under the freedom of speech. Tolerance has always been a libertarian virtue whose version is embedded in our Bill of Rights. in so far as there are others who may not conform to the what the majority holds. Of Arms We conclude. however. “[t]he form of expression is just as important as the message itself. regulation of franchise does not extend to regulation of other aspects of private Ownership. escape from intrusive speech. The ‘captive-audience’ doctrine recognizes that a listener has a right not to be exposed to an unwanted message in circumstances in which the communication cannot be avoided. the Court declared: “We reiterate that the regulation involved at bar is content-base.S. The Court of Appeals held that the municipality was required to accept the monument because A Library a public parkOf is Liberties a traditionalvis-à-vis An Arsenal public forum.” 5. A regulation based on the captive-audience doctrine is in the guise of censorship. provides space for the weakest dissent. COMELEC’s infringement upon petitioners’ property rights as in the present case also reaches out to infringement on their fundamental right to speech.” And. Heterodoxies have always given as pause. Updates and Teasers Page 46 of 99 and manner of the rendition of the message. even acting collectively. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.. much less denied. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. Here. the issue is whether the mayor could unilaterally specify a place other than the one indicated by the applicants for the public assembly? No. is an indispensable condition to such modification. . in modifying the permit outright.” With regard to the application of the freedom of speech to the government itself. . .” R B G 7. (‘[T]he Government's own speech .” The government speech doctrine was reiterated in Walker v. is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny’) . it does not regulate government speech. though.” At the same time. Ermita. Respondent failed to indicate how he had arrived at modifying the terms of the permit against the standard of a clear and present danger test which. Inc. the Court said: “The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech.” Related to the foregoing is the holding of the Court in David v. . it recognized the validity of the law – Public Assembly Act of 1985 (B. ___ (No. For these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity. 488 SCRA 226 (2006). Macapagal-Arroyo. This set of regulations included the need to obtain a permit from the local chief executive. together with freedom of speech. the Court spoke of the right to peaceable assembly in this way: “The first point to mark is that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is.S. . public safety.. except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent. he cannot without an acceptable basis. that “wholesale cancellation JURISTS REVIEW of all permits CisENTER to rally a blatant disregard of the principle that ‘freedom of assembly is not to be limited.’ Tolerance is the rule and limitation is the exception. specially so as he did not immediately inform the applicants who should have been heard first on the matter of his perceived imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil that may warrant the changing of the venue. Sons of Confederate Veterans. B. without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. Atienza. Updates and Teasers Page 47 of 99 park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts. the Court ruled that the mayor. “The opportunity to be heard precedes the action on the permit. 14-144. the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.” 644 SCRA 543 (2011) A aLibrary May members of faculty ofOf Liberties a College vis-à-vis of Law invokeAn the Arsenal guarantee Of Arms of expression and of freedom . 489 SCRA 160 (2006). . . place and manner of the assemblies – it does not impose an absolute ban on public assemblies. Instead. 880 provides a restriction that simply regulates the time.P. . . 613 SCRA 518 (2010) In Bayan v. gravely abused his discretion. which may only be denied on ground of clear and present danger to public order. and of the press. Texas Div. it bears repeating. In Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 880) – providing for guidelines in the conduct of rallies and other mass actions. a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. public morals or public health. (‘Government is not restrained by the First Amendment from controlling its own expression’). . 6.P. since the applicant may directly go to court after an unfavorable action on the permit. 18 June 2015). public convenience. the distinction between protected and unprotected assemblies was eliminated. With theB AR Rrevocation blanket EVIEW 2017 of permits. the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies. of expression. . 576 U. The Court further reminded the respondents and everybody else that freedom of expression is not an absolute – there are other societal values that press for recognition.” .R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Online posting. The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. are considered engaged in the practice of law – their actions as law professors must be measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the factJthat URISTS REVIEW they are lawyers. Here. “GMA Network did not deny that it posted the details of the disbarment complaint on A Library its website. reckless and unfair attacks on judicial decisions and institutions pose. The Court failed to see how it can ennoble the profession if it allowed respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their point of view is to be offensive – the mark of the true intellectual is one who can express his opinions logically and soberly without resort to exaggerated rhetoric and unproductive recriminations. there was a disbarment complaint filed against the lawyer for the principal accused in the Maguindanao Massacre. And. is already publication considering that it was done on GMA Network’s online news website. When the criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals whose personal or other interests in making the criticism are obvious. Quinsayas. CENTER 8. with higher standing in the community. it was pointed out that lawyers. which fact was then reported on-line13 and in broadcast. for instance. The Court also pointed out that a reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the fact that respondents had criticized a decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution – it was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which respondents. would justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties. Updates and Teasers Page 48 of 99 academic freedom to shield themselves from any possible disciplinary proceedings against them for having come up with a public statement which the Court took to be disrespectful and contemptuous? The Court said no. the Court may perhaps tolerate or ignore them. as an educator. Fortun v. comes greater responsibility. who are not parties nor counsels in a pending case have expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in said pending case. saying that the legal reasoning used in the past by this Court to rule that freedom of expression is not a defense in administrative cases against lawyers for using intemperate speech in open court or in court submissions can similarly be applied to invocation of academic freedom. The lawyer R B G against whom the complaint was filed sought to have several persons allegedly responsible for the 13 Noteworthy is what the court said about internet postings. Of Liberties It merely said that it hasvis-à-vis no publicationAn Arsenal where Of Arms the article could be printed and that the news was not televised. when they teach law. the Court declaring that the reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic freedom of law professors. but when law professors are the ones who appear to have lost sight of the boundaries of fair commentary and worse. the Court cannot remain silent for such silence would have a grave implication on legal education in the country. 690 SCRA 623 (2013) BARand Disbarment proceedings are confidential REVIEW 2017 premature publication of such may subject the offender to sanctions. however. and one such societal value that presses for recognition in the case at bar is the threat to judicial independence and the orderly administration of justice that immoderate. The constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. Further. The interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but primarily on his involvement and participation as defense counsel in the Maguindanao Massacre case. Nor is it really competent to deal with it. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers must still remain private and confidential until their final determination. Like matters of thought. However. BAR REVIEW 2017 Freedom of religion guarantees complete freedom to believe without any interference from the State. It is understandable that any matter related to the Maguindanao Massacre is considered a matter of public interest and that the personalities involved. disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this Court. Lessons from the past have made any such unions disastrous and counterproductive. The right to act.” Further. 408 SCRA 1 (2003). FREEDOM OF RELIGION A man’s relationship with his idea of a deity or a Supreme Being is something which the State is not supposed to interfere with. “[s]ince the disbarment complaint is a matter of public interest. media is not prohibited from making a fair. the Court said that “The distribution by Atty. not of scientific fact and verification. getting into the act on religious matters could hardly be beneficial to anyone. however. In any case. may be subject to certain regulations R B G consistent with the mandate of the State to promote the welfare of everyone and to provide for an orderly society. either for the government itself or for any particular religion. this right on the part of the government is not to be lightly assumed. In this case. Religion is a matter of faith JURISTS REVIEW CENTER and belief. the filing of a disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public concern considering that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre case. the Court noted that in the Philippines we adopt a policy . members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency. the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment case as legitimate news. In the absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint. including petitioner. Quinsayas to the media of the disbarment complaint. “[i]f there is a legitimate public interest. 30 were journalists. Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. true. It would have been different if the disbarment case against petitioner was about a private matter as the media would then be bound to respect the confidentiality provision of disbarment proceedings under Section 18. since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public figure because he is representing a matter of public concern. the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate to petitioners supposed actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre case. Nevertheless. And. Of the 57 victims of the massacre. are considered as public figure. legitimate media had a right to publish such fact under freedom of the press. The Court also recognizes that respondent media groups and personalities merely acted on a news lead they received when they reported the filing of the disbarment complaint. The Court declared: “As a general rule. Updates and Teasers Page 49 of 99 dissemination declared in direct contempt. is not sufficient to absolve the media from responsibility for violating the confidentiality rule. as it must have to be weighed carefully with any religion-grounded freedom or interest that may be interfered with. Escritor. however. Indeed. it is hardly possible for a worldly institution that the government is to try to interest itself in spiritual matters.” H.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. by itself. and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern. or to translate that belief into action. A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms In Estrada v. concerns about conscience and belief are a man’s own business.” In other words.” In fine. The Maguindanao Massacre is a very high-profile case. and that an act or practice grounded on religious freedom may only be overcome by a compelling state interest.S. “Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits.” She then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It held that since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws. then after some time she notified the school that she would be able to report to work but she was informed that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill her position for the remainder of the school year. or punishing a church for failing to do so. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thus.” Hosanna-Tabor argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. It explained that “[r]equiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister. Perich intervened in the litigation.” Given the text of theA Library Of Liberties First Amendment vis-à-vis itself. Perich. In this case. developed narcolepsy (symptoms included sudden and deep sleeps from which she could not be roused). provided it does not offend compelling state interests. Invoking what is known as the “ministerial exception. which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions. depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. The congregation subsequently offered to pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher. since the same was sanctioned by her religion and there was no compelling state interest that would have warranted overriding her religion-grounded practice – ““we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances. Her employment was subsequently terminated on grounds which included her “insubordination and disruptive behavior.” grounded J inURISTS REVIEW Cthat the First Amendment. Escritor.” In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor. which givesAn Arsenal special Of Arms solicitude to the rights of religious . a teacher who was also considered a minister (“called teacher”) in a religious institution. The Court agreed. respondent Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. although the morality contemplated by laws is secular. Estrada v. By imposing an unwanted minister. R B G which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. Supreme Court discussed the so- called “ministerial exception” in regard to claims of discrimination leveled against religious organizations relative to employment relationships. 492 SCRA 1 (2006). ___ (No. The principal later called Perich and told her that she would likely be fired. She refused to resign and later presented herself at the school and refused to leave until she received written documentation that she had reported to work.S. the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a “ministerial exception. Updates and Teasers Page 50 of 99 of benevolent neutrality which allows for accommodation of religious practices and morality. intrudes upon more thanBAR REVIEW a mere 2017 employment decision. the Court then went on to allow a court interpreter to continue with her conjugal arrangement with a married man not her husband. 10-553. 11 January 2012). Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church. 565 U.” In the final decision on the case.” as well as the damage she had done to her “working relationship” with the school by “threatening to take legal action. the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause. She was placed on disability leave.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the U. benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion. ENTER precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause. alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. The Court directed the Executive Judge of Quezon City to REGULATE and CLOSELY MONITOR the holding of masses and other religious practices within the Quezon City Hall of Justice by ensuring. seen in light of the ease with which men and women move and R B G fly across boundaries. and practices in every hall of justice. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way. In case of religious rituals. among others. the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. for the purpose of going places. . teach their faith. religious denominations or sects are entitled to the same rights. Updates and Teasers Page 51 of 99 organizations. being able to move about and go to other places could have an informative and educative benefit. the Executive Judges should coordinate and seek approval of the building owners/administrators accommodating their courts. privileges. the implications of trans-national illnesses might as well be factored in the calculus. There shall also be no permanent display of religious icons in all halls of justice in the country. And. Other churches. URISTS REVIEW In any CENTER case. in response to an issue about the use of the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice for the holding of Catholic masses. No. that: (a) it does not disturb or interrupt court proceedings. And. – SCRA – (A. 7 March 2017) Here. Re: Letter of Tony Q. and ( c) it does not unduly inconvenience the public.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful – a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical. He keeps moving about. .M. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory. He would likely develop bedsores and other maladies if he simply stayed in oneJplace. like or swim2017 like fishes. the icons and images shall be hidden or concealed from public view. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs.’ . I. and carry out their mission. he might as well approximate the same by building vehicles by which he can. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT Man is a peripatetic being.” The Court further stated that the “purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. aside from the mere pleasure of going to places and seeing sights other than the same old boring commonplace views. MERS. In no case shall a particular part of a public building be a permanent place for worship for the benefit of any and all religious groups. In other buildings not owned or controlled by the Judiciary.” The Court concluded: “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. re: Holding of Religious Rituals at the Halls of Justice Building in Quezon City. even as he cannot run like cheetahs.” 1. ebola. religious icons and images may be displayed but their presentation is limited only during the celebration of such activities so as not to offend the sensibilities of members of other religious denominations or the non-religious public. could one just be irresponsible in his travels? A Library Employment in the Of also government Liberties vis-à-vis An has its implications Arsenal relative Of Arms to a person’s ability to travel abroad . Valenciano. 10-4-19-SC. talking of contemporary events. Such disposition shall apply to all halls of justice in the country. flyB REVIEW ARbirds. the Court said that it “cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers. the Court came up with guidelines so as not to violate the separation of church and state while allowing for the exercise of one’s religion. (b) it does not adversely affect and interrupt the delivery of public service. With concerns about swine flu. After any religious affair. – is the church’s alone. Heusdens. 3. Civil Code) 16 See. the following lines from Mirasol v. just because you have a vehicle by which you can move about does not necessarily mean that you can use it anywhere and everywhere.17 Neither does it apply to those coming from the Judicial and Bar Council since such body is not under the executive department but the judicial department. 697 SCRA 359 (2013). PICOP Resources.” (Art. Department of Public Works and Highways. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. Republic R B G v. 764 SCRA 1 (2015). otherwise sanctions may be imposed. in regard to this. RIGHT TO INFORMATION Corollary to the right to express oneself freely is the right to be informed on matters which concern himself and the rest of the body politic. and maintenance require close regulation. 15 BAR REVIEW 2017 “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. In this regard. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations. 566 SCRA 451 (2008). It makes no sense presuming knowledge15 if the government itself has not made provisions for the dissemination of statutes and regulations which affect the people’s lives and interests. and Securities and Exchange Commission v. 667 SCRA 1 (2012). 755 SCRA 182 (2015) . e. 17 Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System v. In Cawad v. the Court has also held that publication alone is not enough – there must also be filing of copies of the said circulars. 550 SCRA 680 (2008).R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. Del Rosario v. 514 SCRA 191 (2007). v. may enlighten. it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it. If the people are to make meaningful contributions to their governance. Basic to this right to be informed is the necessity for laws to be published in order to be effective. And. from judges to personnel. Abad. it was held that Implementing Rules which merely interpret and reiterate the law and which do not create a new duty or attach a new disability need not A be Library published norOf Liberties filed with ONAR.16 However. that a handwritten addendum to a Presidential Proclamation which was not included in the published version as it appeared in the Official Gazette will not recognized – such addendum is deemed not included as valid part of the Proclamation. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office. for instance. rules and regulations in the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) at the University of the Philippines Law Center. You can not insist on using a tricycle to traverse the expressways. the Court held in Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig. Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. It must not also be lost sight of that not only laws but also administrative circulars which are not merely internal or interpretative which must also be published. vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 18 Villanueva v.14 Also. Pascua. its use. there is no need for filing with the ONAR when it comes to merely internal or interpretative circulars or resolutions. Inc. specially on those in the judiciary. Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator v. Judicial and Bar Council. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. Related to publication. v.g. As a rule.. Inc. certain clearances and permits have to be secured. Velasco. 490 SCRA 318 (2006).” J.. Updates and Teasers Page 52 of 99 as he or she pleases. and.18 On the need to balance the right to know and the government’s need to keep certain things JURISTS REVIEW CENTER 14 See. operation. 677 SCRA 1 (2012). 641 SCRA 372 (2011). As a special kind of road. “A toll way is not an ordinary road. Inc. GMA Network. Department of National Defense. 662 SCRA 126 (2011). then they must know what is happening inside and outside the halls of government. Macarine. Leave Division. hence.” And in that spirit. it did the delicate balancing involving the invocation of executive privilege and the power of legislative inquiry. The privilege being an extraordinary power. History has been witness. 2017 “logic dictates that the challenged order must be covered by the publication requirement. ” Then. being presumed to be in aid of legislation. in which case the Executive Secretary must state that the authority is ‘By order of the President. 504 SCRA 704 (2006). In other words. any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which. . the Court had this to say in Senate of the Philippines v. a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. the President may not authorize her subordinates to exercise such power. The people are equally concerned with this proceeding and have the right to participate therein in order to protect their interests. It held: “Executive privilege. As explained above. however.” . but the right of the people to information. The extent of their participation will largely depend on the information gathered and made known to them. There are. Petitioners are not amiss in claiming.’ which means that he personally consulted with her. however. is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. whether asserted against Congress. the Court found “it essential to limit to the President the power to invoke the privilege. however. clear distinctions between the right of Congress to information which underlies the power of inquiry and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Ermita. it has been recognized that the head of government may keep certain information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. In other words. .R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the Court said: “[T]he conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but also the citizenry.O. or the public. . The citizens are thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress – opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives and other government officials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in the government. . Updates and Teasers Page 53 of 99 confidential. Indeed. however. 488 SCRA 1 (2006): “A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. 464 has a direct effect on the right of R B G 19 In Sabio v. the right to information really goes hand-in-hand with the Aconstitutional Library Of Liberties policies vis-à-vis of full public Anhonesty disclosure and Arsenal Of Arms in the public service. it must be wielded only by the highest official in the executive hierarchy.”19 JURISTS Moreover. the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. . She may of course authorize the Executive Secretary to invoke the privilege on her behalf. that what is involved in the present controversy is not merely the legislative power of inquiry. if he is a proper party.” How is people’s right to information implicated in all of these? “E. To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally conducted in public. it does not follow that the same is exempt from the need for publication. noting the exceptional and personal nature of Executive privilege.O 464 is concerned only with the demands of Congress for the appearance of executive officials in the hearings conducted by it. 464 applies REVIEW only to Cthe officials of ENTER executive branch. even in courts REVIEW of justice. it bears noting. to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself to abuse. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept. with the concomitant right of the people to know as a consequence of such hearings. . E. Even in the early history of republican thought.” Since the subject matter of said executive issuance is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may question in the political forums BAR or.O. and not with the demands of citizens for information pursuant to their right to information on matters of public concern. Gordon. is presumed to be a matter of public concern. the courts. the necessity to guard it zealously. even as “E. Information regarding the financial standing of a person at the time of his death and the manner by which his private estate may ultimately be settled is not a matter of general. as well those of their immediate family or household members. but also means to further improve the teaching and learning of the art A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms and science of accounting. including judicial records. to accused and the victims. If one were to wonder why AAA is so familiar a rape victim. If the information sought is not a matter of public concern or interest. In Cabalquinto the Court adopted a new policy in regard to crimes involving violence to women and their children. withheld the real name of the victim-survivor and used fictitious initials instead to represent her. And as with all matters pedagogical. 496 SCRA 282 (2006). People v. in People v.” Subsequently. Unlike court orders and decisions. public concern or one in which a citizen or the public has an interest by which its legal rights or liabilities may be affected. it is because of the policy adopted by the Court in Cabalquinto.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 2017has held: “We are prepared to concede the Court that national board examinations such as the CPA Board Exams are matters of public concern. The populace in general. once a particular information has been determined to be of public concern. On the other hand. shall not be disclosed. are identified in the reports of cases which are disseminated for everyone to read.” With regard to judicial records. pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be matters of public concern or interest. Thus. It is. exhibits and pleadings filed by the parties. Due process thus requires that the people should have been apprised of this issuance before it was implemented. we do realize that there may be valid reasons to limit . BAR REVIEW With regard to professional board examinations. The Court further declared that. Hilado v. on privacy concerns. from the plaintiffs to defendants. The interest of the public hinges on its right to transparency in the administration of justice. Reyes. It is normally the case that the names of the parties involved in a case. In fine. Accordingly. However. Taking into consideration the need to maintain the confidentiality of information in cases involving violence against women and their children. if you now read initials that sound like battery sizes or advertisements comparing a named brand with their competitors. teaches us that the term “judicial record” or “court record” does not only refer to the orders. safeguard the integrity of the fact-finding process. denial of access thereto does not violate the constitutional right to information. justice requires that all should have free access to the opinions of judges and justices. and the examinees in particular. the Court also decreed thatJthe URISTS REVIEW exact addresses CENTER of the victims should be deleted. and it would be against sound public policy to prevent. appearances. the Court. there is a difference. becomes available. you would understand why. would understandably be interested in the fair and R B G competent administration of these exams in order to ensure that only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. 502 SCRA 419 (2006). Updates and Teasers Page 54 of 99 the people to information on matters of public concern. custody. 533 SCRA 708 (2007). suppress or keep the earliest knowledge of these from the public. the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities. to the end that it will serve to enhance the basic fairness of the judicial proceedings. comes to the fore. and word-for-word testimony which took place during the trial and which are in the possession. therefore. these examinations could be not merely quantitative means of assessment. the accessory right of access to official records. Rentoria. Then. judgment or verdict of the courts – it comprises the official collection of all papers. between court orders or judgments and the parties’ pleadings and whatever may go with the same. and foster an informed public discussion of public affairs. “[l]ikewise. starting with said case. Cabalquinto. a matter of public interest which members of the body politic may question before this Court. all processes issued and returns made thereon. or control of the judiciary or of the courts for purposes of rendering court decisions. pdf) Relative to the presentation of evidence against the Chief Justice in his impeachment trial. involving as it does the deliberative process of reaching a decision. the Court then discussed confidentiality of court deliberations and records. as well as the testimony of Justices. “In the Judiciary. requests were made with the Supreme Court for the examination and production of certain documents and records.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/notice. “From the constitutional perspective. (2) the actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of the Court’s session. and checking of these multiple choice exams that require that the questions and answers remain confidential for a limited duration. the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) prohibits the disclosure of (1) the result of the raffle of cases. generation. 623 SCRA 163 (2010).” With the foregoing backdrop.”20 1. . privileges against disclosure of official records ‘create a hierarchy of rights that protect certain confidential relationships over and above the public’s evidentiary need’ or ‘right to every man’s evidence. Specifically. it may well be that there exist inherent difficulties in the preparation. Updates and Teasers Page 55 of 99 access to the Examination Papers in order to properly administer the exam. encoding.’ Accordingly. the Court had to approach the matter from perspective of the principle of separation of powers and the concomitant independence of the judiciary.” Then.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 14 February 2012 (http://sc. these considerations taken with the principle of comity – the practice of voluntarily observing inter-departmental courtesy in undertaking their assigned constitutional duties for the harmonious working of government – the Court proceeded to state that “[i]nter-departmental courtesy demands that the highest levels of each department be exempt from the compulsory processes of the other departments on matters related to the functions and duties of their office. Here. 2012 and the Various Letters for the Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January 19 and 25.gov. the need arises from the dictates of the integrity of the Court’s decision-making function which may be affected by the disclosure of information. Domondon. ‘Written advice from a variety of individuals is an important R B G element of the government’s decision-making process and that the interchange of advice could be stifled if courts forced the government to disclose those recommendations. by the rules and by Court policies. including the issuance of certified true copies of the rollos and the Agenda and Minutes of the Deliberations relative to certain cases. as recognized by law. To reiterate.judiciary. BARTheREVIEW privilege2017against disclosure of these kinds of information/communication is known as deliberative process privilege. officials and employees of the Court. administration. 2012.’ the privilege is intended ‘to prevent A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 20 Antolin v. certain information contained in the records of cases before the Supreme Court are considered confidential and are exempt from disclosure. More than the mere convenience of the examiner. a necessary starting vantage point in this consideration is the principle of separation of powers through the recognition of the independence of each branch of government and through the protection of privileged and confidential documents and processes.” JURISTS REVIEW CENTER What about the confidentiality requirement? “[T]he rules on confidentiality will enable the Members of the Court to ‘freely discuss the issues without fear of criticism for holding unpopular positions’ or fear of humiliation for one’s comments. In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court officials and Employees as Witnesses Under the Subpoenas of February 10. and (3) the deliberations of the Members in court sessions on cases and matters pending before it. ” In addition. The deliberative process can be impaired by undue exposure of the decision-making process to public scrutiny before or even after the decision is made.’” And. The key question in determining whether the material is deliberative in nature is whether disclosure of the information would discourage candid discussion within the agency. the privilege may also be claimed by other court officials and employees when asked to act on these documents and other communications. “two other grounds may be cited for denying access to court records. from being subjected to compulsory process: (1) the disqualification by reason of privileged communication and (2) the pendency of an action or matter” – “Members of the Court may not be compelled to testify in the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice BAR REVIEW 2017 or other Members of the Court about information they acquired in the performance of their official function of adjudication. such as information on how deliberations were conducted or the material inputs R B G that the justices used in decision-making. note must be taken of the fact that “[u]nder existing laws. judges. in this regard. . “[A] Senator may invoke legislative privilege when he or she is questioned outside the Senate about information gathered during an executive session of the Senate’s legislative inquiry in aid of legislation. if it reflects the give-and-take of the consultative process. as well as JURISTS REVIEW CENTER preventing members of the bench.’ on the other hand. . how do you draw the parameters of this judicial deliberative process privilege? “To qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege. A material is ‘deliberative. Updates and Teasers Page 56 of 99 the “chilling” of deliberative communications. Court records which are ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative’ in nature are thus protected and cannot be the subject of a subpoena if judicial privilege is to be preserved. too. “it is understood that the rule extends to documents and other communications which are part of or are related to the deliberative process.. the information is deemed privileged. Such act violates judicial privilege (or the equivalent of executive privilege) as it pertains to the exercise of the constitutional mandate of adjudication. neither the .” What is then the extent of this rule of confidentiality applicable to courts? The Court explained that while Section 2. in temporal sequence. The deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure documents reflecting advisory opinions. the agency must show that the document is both (1) predecisional and (2) deliberative. a justice of the court or a judge may invoke judicial privilege in the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court. If the disclosure of the information would expose the government’s decisionmaking process in a way that discourages candid discussion among the decision-makers (thereby undermining the courts’ ability to perform their functions). In the same manner. Obviously. In this regard.” HowAaboutLibrary courtOf Liberties officials vis-à-vis Well. confidentiality is not something that the Court alone is claiming for itself. recommendations and deliberations that are component parts of the process for formulating governmental decisions and policies. and employees? An Arsenal the sameOf Arms rules on confidentiality apply to them. They may likewise claim exemption when asked about this privileged information. In other words. What applies to magistrates applies with equal force to court officials and employees who are privy to these deliberations. “[a] document is ‘predecisional’ under the deliberative process privilege if it precedes. ” And. the decision to which it relates. communications are considered predecisional if they were made in the attempt to reach a final conclusion. for proceedings in the performance of his or her own judicial functions.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. and court officials and employees from public scrutiny or the pressure of public opinion that would impair a judge’s ability to render impartial decisions. The privilege in general insulates the Judiciary from an improper intrusion into the functions of the judicial branch and shields justices.” Otherwise put. Rule 10 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (IRSC) speaks only of the confidentiality of court deliberations. because the end-result would be the disclosure of confidential information that could subject them to criminal prosecution. with their respective heads of offices. the court said. however. their presence before the Impeachment Court can be and should be excused where certified copies of these non-privileged and non-confidential documents can be provided. where the ground cited in an impeachment complaint is bribery. For example. with the Office of the Court Administrator. the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. this case about the request for Statements of Assets. 672 SCRA 27 (2012) Relative to the issues of transparency and access to matters of public concern.” On the need to subpoena court personnel to testify. “witnesses need not be summoned to testify on matters of public record” because “entries in official records may be presented without the necessity of presenting in court the officer or person who made the entries. and may cover only previous records if so specifically requested and considered as justified.A. These records. in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions and duties. This is to be differentiated from a situation where the testimony is on a matter which is external to their adjudicatory functions and duties. 2. the authority to disclose shall be made by the A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms Court En Banc. under the terms of these guidelines R B and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. may be presented and marked in evidence only where they are not excluded by reasons of privilege and the other reasons discussed above.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the Court came up with the following guidelines: JURISTS 1. for the lower courts. In the case of requests for copies of SALN of the Justices of the Supreme Court. Justices of the Court cannot be compelled to testify on matters relating to the internal deliberations and actions of the Court. . a Justice may be called as a witness in the impeachment of another Justice. Requests shall cover only copiesBofARtheR EVIEW latest SALN. officials and employees of the Judiciary. the Court of Tax Appeals. as determined by the officials mentioned in par. Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and other related documents about members of the judiciary. Entries in public or official books or records may be proved by the production of the books or records themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof. and for attached agencies. Updates and Teasers Page 57 of 99 Impeachment Court nor the Senate has the power to grant immunity from criminal prosecution for revealing confidential information. All requests shall be filed with the OfficeRof the ClerkC EVIEW ofENTER Court of the Supreme Court. Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets. A Justice. G 3. No. however. the Court of Appeals. “To state the rule differently. Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justice of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary. 2017 PDS and CV of the members. 6713. the Court declared: “As a last point and mainly for purposes of stress.” The Court further clarified that the rule on confidentiality applied to internal deliberations and actions (adjudicatory functions) as distinguished from external matters.” And to make it clear for everyone. may not be called to testify on the arguments the accused Justice presented in the internal debates as these constitute details of the deliberative process. the Court of Appeals. 1 above.” 2. the Sandiganbayan. the privileges discussed above that apply to justices and judges apply mutatis mutandis to court officials and employees with respect to their official functions. If the intent only is for them to identify and certify to the existence and genuineness of documents within their custody or control that are not otherwise confidential or privileged under the above discussed rules. as bribery is a matter external to or is not connected with the adjudicatory functions and duties of a magistrate. ’ Likewise exempted from the right to information are ‘information on military and diplomatic secrets. “Firstly. .’ As such. the Court has already declared that the constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to information does not cover national security matters and intelligence information. trade secrets and banking transactions and criminal matters. Updates and Teasers Page 58 of 99 4. closed-door Cabinet meeting and executive sessions of either house of Congress. It is always necessary. whether as individuals or as members of the media. dealing with matters of foreign affairs. that the recommendations A Libraryconsideration submitted for the President’s Of Liberties be vis-à-vis Anout well-thought Arsenal Of Arms and well-deliberated. In the case of the members of the media. must have no derogatory record of having misused any requested information previously furnished to them. The Court upheld such claim. Every request shall explain the requesting party’s specific purpose and their individual interests sought to be served. No. . In Chavez v. 2005 meeting was classified as a closed-door Cabinet meeting by virtue of the committee’s composition and the nature of its mandate BARandRpolicy-making. the respondents claim exemption on the ground that the May 23. their interests should go beyond pure or mere curiosity. Both terms cover a wide-range of issues that the public may want to be familiar with either because the issues have a direct effect on them or because the issues ‘naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. correspondences. the request shall additionally be supported by proof under oath of their media affiliation and by a similar certification of the accreditation of their respective organizations as legitimate media practitioners. it must not be exempt by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. given the highly important and complex powers to fix tariff rates vested in the President. shall state the commitment that the request shall only be for the stated purpose. . trade EVIEW 2017 They assert that the information withheld was within the scope of the exemption from disclosure because the CTRM meetings were directly related to the exercise of the sovereign prerogative of the President as the Head of State in the conduct of foreign R B G affairs and the regulation of trade. Sereno v. the Court has ruled that the right to information does not extend to matters acknowledged as ‘privileged information under the separation of powers. 6713. The requesting party. Public Estates Authority. 5. whether or not the information sought is of public interest or public concern is left to the proper determination of the courts on a case to case basis. And secondly.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. The Court pointed out that two requisites must concur before the right to information may be compelled by writ of mandamus. and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused. the information sought must be in relation to matters of public concern or public interest. “The respondents are correct.’ which include ‘Presidential conversations. 782 SCRA 486 (2016) Minutes of closed-door meetings of the Committee on Trade and Related Maters (CTRM) are exempt from the constitutional right of access to information. The second requisite is that the information requested must not be excluded by law from the constitutional guarantee. Committee on Trade and Related Matters (CTRM) of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). As to the first requisite. as well as the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. or discussions during closed-door Cabinet meetings.A. as provided in Section 3(a) of Rule IV of the Rules Implementing R. and shall be submitted in a duly accomplished request form secured from the SC website. The use of the information secured shall only be for the stated purpose. 7. there is no rigid test in determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern or public interest.’” JURISTS REVIEW CENTER Here. The Court has . In that regard. In the case of requesting individuals other than members of the media. Equally excluded from coverage of the constitutional guarantee are diplomatic correspondence. 6. 3. information affecting national security. BCA International Corporation. we hold that before a ‘definite proposition’ is reached BAR by an agency. REVIEWor2017 transactions. decisions’ yet which can be accessed by the public under the right to information. .” In addition. there is a need to strike a balance between the right of the people and the interest of the Government to be protected. The DFA opposed the same.” 4.” Further. In the meantime. What should determine whether or not information was within the ambit of the exception from the people’s right to access to information was not the composition of the body. It eventually held that the deliberative process privilege could be properly invoked in an arbitration proceeding if warranted under the circumstances. there is nothingCin ENTER our Chavez v. which is within the exceptions of the constitutional right to A Library information.” After declaring that “[d]eliberative process privilege is one kind of privileged information. Updates and Teasers Page 59 of 99 expressly recognized in Chavez v. alleging that the presentation of the witnesses and documents was prohibited by law and protected by the deliberative process privilege. there was an appearance of three witnesses subpoenaed during the arbitration hearings.” The Court said that the Regional Trial Court was wrong in holding that the information was no longer privileged. the Court also declared: “Every claim of exemption. is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those tasked to exercise Presidential. or that the same is exempted from the coverage of the constitutional guarantee. ensuring and promoting the free exchange of ideas among the members of the committee tasked to give tariff recommendations to the President were truly imperative. Public Estates Authority that ‘a frank exchange of exploratory ideas and assessments. is liberally construed in favor of disclosure and strictly against the claim of confidentiality. the claim of privilege as a cause for exemption from the obligation to disclose information must be clearly asserted by specifying the grounds for the exemption. therefore. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a TRO enjoining the arbitral tribunal from taking cognizance of the testimonies of the 3 witnesses. but the nature of the information sought to be accessed. free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested parties. it is the government agency concerned that has the burden of showing that the information sought to be obtained is not a matter of public concern. “Contrary to the RTC's JURISTS REVIEW ruling. being a limitation on a right constitutionally granted to the people. . However. Only when there is an official recommendation can a ‘definite proposition’ arise and. BCA International sought the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum relative to its dispute with the Department of Foreign Affairs. On the other hand. the public’s right to information attaches.” Finally.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. there are no ‘official acts. The Court also noted that “this case is one of first impression involving the production of evidence in an arbitration case where the deliberative process privilege is invoked. that the burden has been well-discharged herein. “[i]n case of conflict. “executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information. the privileged character of a document no longer exists. . the need to ensure the protection of the privilege of non-disclosure is necessary to allow the free exchange of ideas among Government officials as well as to guarantee the well-considered recommendation free from interference of the inquisitive public. Legislative and Judicial power. 795 SCRA 276 (2016) In this case involving an arbitration proceeding. Without doubt. not to categories of persons. Here. Public Estates Authority ruling which states that once a ‘definite proposition’ is reached by an agency. accordingly. We reiterate. therefore. this right to R B G information has certain limitations and does not cover privileged information to protect the independence of decision-making by the government. In case of denial of access to the information.” the Court went onOfto Liberties vis-à-vis state that “[t]he An character privileged Arsenalof Of theArms information does not end . However. As such. the fact that some members of the committee were not part of the President’s Cabinet was of no moment. Department of Foreign Affairs v. e.’ In Judicial Watch of Florida v. the privilege protects candid discussions within an agency. isolated from the rest or the R B G mainland. it prevents public confusion from premature disclosure of agency opinions before the agency establishes final policy. “[a]s a qualified privilege.’ but requires disclosure of policy statements and final opinions ‘that have the force of law or explain actions that an agency has already taken. Department of Justice. including details involving the privileged information. the deliberative process privilege cannot be waived. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION BAR REVIEW 2017 Man being a social being necessarily finds it part of his natural inclinations that he associate with others. 479 (1965) . Updates and Teasers Page 60 of 99 when an agency has adopted a definite proposition or when a contract has been perfected or consummated.S. the right to associate may also include as a necessary corollary. though such latter right A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 21 See.’ Under RA 9285.g. The deliberative process privilege applies if its purpose is served. ‘Deliberative process privilege contains three policy bases: first. and to protect against confusing the issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency’s action. orders of an arbitral tribunal are appealable to the courts. the privilege serves ‘to assure that subordinates within an agency will feel free to provide the decision[-]maker with their uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism. And the act of so joining others could be a form of expression – you link up with people who are likely to share your interests. to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted. sentiments. frank discussion between subordinate and chief concerning administrative action. preventing such official from making candid discussions within his or her agency. Future quality of deliberative process can be impaired by undue exposure of the decisionmaking process to public scrutiny after the court decision is made.’ Thus. philosophy. otherwise.’ Stated differently. and third. “‘[t]he deliberative process privilege exempts materials that are ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the deliberative process privilege's ‘ultimate purpose xx x is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions by allowing government officials freedom to debate alternative approaches in private. If an official is compelled to testify before an arbitral tribunal and the order of an arbitral tribunal is appealed to the courts. the burden falls upon the government agency asserting the deliberative process privilege to prove that the information in question satisfies both requirements – predecisional and deliberative. This disclosure of privileged information can inhibit a public official from expressing his or her candid opinion. Griswold v. the public should not judge officials based on information they considered prior to issuing their final decisions.” The Court further held that “[t]here is a public policy involved in a claim of deliberative process privilege – ‘the policy of open. The decision of the court is widely published. Connecticut. such official can be inhibited by fear of later being subject to public criticism.” Nevertheless. the U. it protects the integrity of an agency’s decision.’” In fine.S. second. He would not relish the idea of simply being an island all by himself.” Further. the right not to associate. ‘to protect the frank exchange of ideas and opinions critical to the government’s decision[-]making process where disclosure would discourage such discussion in the future.’ and this ultimate purpose would not be served equally well by making the privilege temporary or held to have expired.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 381 U. that is. the purpose of the privilege will be defeated.. “[t]he deliberative process privilege can also be invoked in arbitration proceedings under RA 9285.” JURISTS REVIEW CENTER K. ideology or affection.21 And. Legaspi. consequently. 349 (1919) 27 28 J De Knecht v. or. which involves a teacher in Boy Scout who was convicted of sexual assault for putting his organ into the mouth of a male ten-year old pupil. “the right to abstain from joining a labor organization is subordinate to the policy of encouraging unionism as an instrument of social justice. Court of Appeals. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude a homosexual. Reyes. questions on expropriation may deal with issues of necessity. provided the same is for public use and there is payment of just compensation. theARrate has EVIEW been lowered to six per cent (6%). excluding or expelling those whose personality traits may run into conflict with the group’s philosophy. the same has also been construed to have a more expansive meaning so as to cover certain purposes which could not have been included in the past. 24 Hurley v. 100 SCRA 660URISTS (1980) REVIEW CENTER The interest rate has been set at twelve per centum (12%) per annum. 84 SCRA 554 (1978) 23 See Boy Scouts of America v. EMINENT DOMAIN While the government may negotiate with the owner for the acquisition of the latter’s property. Accordingly. vis-à-vis for as long An as the taking Arsenal is for Of Arms a public purpose and just compensation is paid.30 and setting up the birthplace of a known religious leader as a National Historical Landmark. National Housing Authority. 515 U. Dale. 454 SCRA 516 [2005]). See also Ordinario v.. 670 SCRA 110 [2012]) . 395 SCRA 494 [2003].S. the Court has reverted to the old rule that the same is a judicial function. Sr. where the U. the owner may simply be disinclined to sell. Court of Appeals. which rate should help eliminate the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of currency over time. 149 SCRA 305 (1987) 30 31 R Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. to be computed from the time of taking to the date of payment. when it comes to associations directly related to one’s employment. 557 (1995) 25 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. such as tourism. 252 SCRA 412 (1996) B G 32 “The fact that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspis for their own private purposes is. starting 1 July 2013. this coercive power of the government to take property even if the owner opposes. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank. not one to be simply determined by looking at what is indicated in the tax declaration. Thus.23 or refusing participation to a group in a parade where that group’s message would not be in conformity with the organizer’s own idea of what the activity is all about. Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. However. Dulay.22 The right to associate may also mean that an organization would have the right to choose who its members are. however..S. such a procedure may not always result in a successful transaction.26 or arbitrary exercise. 640 (2000). (Republic v. Bautista. Romana. especially if there is need for more expeditious action.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.28 As for judicial determination of just compensation. 530 U. 125 SCRA 220 (1983) Manosca v. (See Department of Agrarian Reform v.27 as well as the justness and timeliness of the payment for the property taken. Republic v.S.” (Republic v. the doubt 22 In re Edillon. 40 Phil. considering that the power of eminent domain involves the strong arm of the law to compel an unwilling person to part with his property. Chinese Community of Manila. 729 SCRA 387 [2014]) 29 EPZA v. Updates and Teasers Page 61 of 99 may not justify a lawyer in refusing to pay his dues to the IBP. 29 With regard to public use. People. Reyes v. 627 SCRA 590 (2010) 26 City of Manila v.24 And.32 extreme caution is called for in resolving complaints for condemnation – when a serious doubt arises regarding the supposed public use of property. Court B R 2017 of Appeals. not a valid reason to deny exercise ofA theLibrary Of Liberties right of expropriation. Sta. Irish American Gay.”25 L.31 Also. 383 SCRA 611 [2002]. 428 SCRA 773 (2004). . as well as the need to devote the property to public use. or the time when compulsory acquisition was subsequently mandated (2006) following the invalidation of the SDP agreement? The Court said. The mere fact that the government or its agencies may not have prevailed in the first attempt to expropriate a property does not preclude them from doing so again. and which entry must also be under warrant or color of legal authority. note that the exercise of the power of eminent domain is not subject to the strictures of res judicata or the principle of law of the case. Hacienda Luisita. It made reference to entry. National Housing Authority. Republic. it was the PARC approval which 33 Barangay Sindalan.35 as well as the repurchase of the property when the purpose for which it was expropriated is abandoned. Inc. Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition. the Court held that where the initial taking of a property subject to expropriation was by virtue of a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional. and. v. in the context of expropriation proceedings. Meanwhile. the Court spoke about the elements of “taking. Lim. the ouster and deprivation of the owner of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.” the Court further stated. San Fernando. So. De Castellvi. However. Lozada. otherwise the owner would be entitled to demand recovery of possession. 292 SCRA (1998) 38 Republic v. Vda. To be precise. these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP. “when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme.37 Also. in Tiongson v. the date when Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) approved the Hacienda’s SDP in view of the fact that this is the time that the farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.34 This perspective would make it easier to understand the Court’s recent rulings mandating payment within five (5) years from finality of the judgment of expropriation. as in the instant case. In the case of Hacienda Luisita. not the date of taking. Pampanga v.36 Further. It explained that the date of “taking” is 21 November 1989. the soil has no value separate from that of the expropriated land. 532 SCRA 493 (2007) 35 Republic v. 613 SCRA 618 (2010) See Municipality A Libraryv. making adjustments or rectifications in whatever may have been the earlier deficiencies. 462 SCRA 265 (2005) 36 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. the Court also had to determine when the property was deemed taken for purposes of the agrarian reform program considering that the earlier plan to comply – by means of a “stock distribution plan” (SDP) – was eventually invalidated. it is the former. Court of Appeals. Sr. 58 SCRA 336 (1974).Liberties vis-à-vis An678 Arsenal Of Arms 37 of Parañaque Realty Corporation.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 558 SCRA 56 (2008).38 1. Updates and Teasers Page 62 of 99 should be resolved in favor of the property owner and against the State. 664 SCRA 233(2012) .” in order to properly determine the reckoning date for just compensation. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. Rural Bank of Kabacan. HLI’s submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the BAR agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are REVIEW covered 2017 by CARP. JURISTS REVIEW CENTER “‘Taking’ also occurs. which must be for more than a momentary period. 518 SCRA 649 (2007) R B G 34 San Roque Realty and Development Corporation v.33 or. Inc. 670 SCRA 392 (2012) In Republic v.Of V.. Thus. that eminent domain cases are to be strictly construed against the expropriator.M. is it at the time the SDP agreement was approved (1989). accepting a ten percent (10%) easement fee pursuant to Sec. the Provincial Engineer. No. holding that he already got what was due him as evidenced by the Grant of Right of Way he executed in favor of NPC. 6395 (NAPOCOR Charter) which provides merely for a 10% right-of-way easement fee. National Power Corporation v.A.” Thus. 193 SCRA 1 (1991). “Considering that Gutierrez was specifically made the point of reference for Jesus Cabahug’s reservation to seek further compensation fromA NPC. 689 SCRA 554 (2013) In this case. the Rules do not impose any qualifications or restrictions on the appointment. 3. fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. 702 SCRA 359 (2013) The appointment of the Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC) instead of three (3) commissioners to assist the court in determining just compensation substantially complies with §5 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. “[S]ince the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land. instead of the full amount for the property affected by the transmission lines of NAPOCOR. The mere fact that they are government officials does not disqualify them as disinterested persons. The R B G Supreme Court saw otherwise.” Statutes and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are not binding on courts and. Cabahug v. Updates and Teasers Page 63 of 99 should be considered as the effective date of ‘taking’ as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands. . National Power Corporation v. 6395. he Jreserved URISTStheRright EVIEW CENTER to receive additional compensation pursuant to the case of National Power Corporation v. i.A..” In Gutierrez.” 4. No. specially in light of the reservation made in said grant. Cabahug subsequently filed a case for additional payment. are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount thereof.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. at best. . Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. It was explained. other than that the commissioners should not number more than three and that they should be competent and disinterested parties. 689 SCRA 666 (2013) In this case. the Court reaffirmed the rule that “[l]egislative enactments. Cruz. are required to discharge. while Cabahug granted the NPC a continuous easement of right of way for the latter’s transmission lines and their appurtenances. National Power Corporation. Instead. Considering their positions. thus: “Although the appointment of commissioners is mandatory.e. BAR but The trial court ruled in favor of Cabahug REVIEW the Court2017 of Appeals reversed. the issue presented for the Court’s resolution was the . which mean that receipt of the easement fee did not bar further compensation from NPC. but the NPC said it already paid what was due pursuant to R. it disregarded the National Power Corporation’s reliance on §3A(b) of R. and the Provincial Treasurer. what we find material is that the PAC was tasked to perform precisely the same duty that the commissioners. as the provincial government has no significant interest in the case. we find Library Ofthat the CA likewise Liberties vis-à-viserred AninArsenal finding that Ofthe ruling in said case does Arms not apply to the case at bench. . . as well as executive issuances. “[t]he appointment of the PAC served the same function as an appointment of three persons as commissioners under the Rules. Gutierrez.” In short. 2. . .” Such approval operates and takes the place of a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition. we find each member of the PAC competent to perform the duty required of them. under Section 5. however. Zabala. It is immaterial that the RTC appointed a committee instead of three persons to act as commissioners. 3-A of Republic Act No. it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property. since the PAC is composed of three members — the Provincial Assessor. to appraise the valuation of the affected lots. 6395. Any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation. 700 SCRA 243 (2013) and 756 SCRA 389 (2015) The subject property was taken way back in 1940 by the government for the purpose of using it as part of a national highway without the courtesy of any expropriation proceedings being initiated. In 1994. the Court stated: “Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an R B G injustice. 6395. Updates and Teasers Page 64 of 99 propriety of making NPC liable for the payment of the full market value of the affected property despite the fact that transfer of title thereto was not required by said easement. just to remind everyone about who has the final say on just compensation. Tecson. as here. is not binding upon this Court.” Then. the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use. Since said easement falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. the ruling in Gutierrez remains doctrinal and should be applied. “In upholding the landowners’ right to full just compensation. or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. This doctrine finds no application in this case. Neither shall prescription bar respondents’ claim A Library following the long-standing ruleOf Liberties ‘that vis-à-vis where private AnisArsenal property OfGovernment taken by the Arms for public use . as in this case. the Court added: “Even without the reservation made by Jesus Cabahug in the Grant of Right of Way. free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership. or when the introduction of structures or objects which. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v.” 5. death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary. as amended. similarly involves transmission lines which not only endangers life and limb but restricts as well the owner's use of the land traversed thereby. No. the application of Gutierrez to this case is not improper as NPC represents it to be. It has been ruled that the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land if. since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents’ claim. by their nature. The determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial function and no statute. Where the right of way easement. NPC’s utilization of said provision has been repeatedly struck down by this Court in a number of cases. When the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. moreover. the Court declared: “Too. due where the nature and effect of the easement is to impose limitations against the use of the land for an indefinite period and deprive the landowner its ordinary use. is the action barred by laches or prescription?) BAR REVIEW 2017 On the effect of long delay. Section 3A of R. or value at the time of the recovery suit more than fifty years later (1995)? (Incidentally. the CA reversibly erred in sustaining NPC’s reliance on Section 3-A of RA 6395 which states that only 10% of the market value of the property is due to the owner of the property subject to an easement of right of way. create or increase the probability of injury. the Court ruled that the power of eminent domain may be exercised although title is not transferred to the expropriator in an easement of right of way. the owners asked for the payment of just compensation but they were not happy with the offer of the government so they went to court to recover their property. decree. the pivotal issue toJbe resolvedRwas URISTS EVIEW CENTER the valuation to be used – the value at time of taking (1940). Hence.A.” And. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use. Just compensation which should be neither more nor less than the money equivalent of the property is. but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the owner’s action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe. cannot be inequitable and unconscionable because it resulted directly from the application of law and jurisprudence – standards that have taken into account fairness and equity in setting the interest rates due for the use or forbearance of money. However.’ This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit.” B R AR amount Justice Leonen agreed with Justice Velasco the awarded EVIEW 2017 amounted to gross injustice. they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised. Valuation is indeed an inexact science and economics also has its own assumptions. The concept of just compensation does not imply fairness to the property owner alone. I submit that this proposal is a happy middleAground. to be computed from 1940 until full payment.” (Under the submission of Justice Leonen. however meager or enormous it may be. the Court explained: “While disparity in the above amounts is obvious and may appear inequitable to respondents as they would be receiving such outdated valuation after a very long period. He pointed out that under the decision – after 72 years from taking – the amount to be paid would only be the measly amount of =27.” and.040.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. at the rate of 6% per annum. x x x fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. whereas if the judgment of the Court of Appeals (based on the valuation of P P =1. penalized again by being awarded a mere pittance. thus.” Now for the valuation. therefore.066. “[c]onsidering that respondents-movants only resorted to judicial demand for the payment of the fair market value of the land on March 17.032.022. making use of the value in 1940 (P =0. respondents are. and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation. . “just compensation due respondents in this case should. that is. By applying this concept. however. the Court expounded on interest payment and just compensation. After all. m. as well as an admonition on need for timely payment. or P=357.500 at the time the action was filed? No.00. I am sure that we all share in each other's goals. . What is left to respondents is the right of compensation. We take into consideration the potential R B G of money to increase (or decrease) in value across time.’” Any effect then of the delay? “For failure of respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time. be fixed not as of the time of payment but at the time of taking. adding the interest computed to the market value of the 39 Justice Velasco dissented on the just compensation. “Just compensation is ‘the fair value of the property as between one who receives.70/sq. Library Of It meets theLiberties vis-à-vis need for doctrinal An by precision urged Arsenal Ofand Justice Peralta Armsthe thirst for substantial justice in Justice Velasco's separate opinion. m) instead of the value of P =1. “It is important to note. the Court added compounding interest.500/sq. it is equally true that they too are remiss in guarding against the cruel effects of belated claim. but also to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation.” But is it not unfair to the landowners. 1995. He then came up with his own idea as to how to make the compensation fairer: “[T]he proper way to resolve this would be to use the economic concept of present value. Compensation must be just not only to the property owner. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. in my reckoning. The Court should not countenance DPWH's illegal act and penalize respondents hy awarding them with a miserable amount of just compensation after going through the arduous process of vindicating their constitutional and property rights. and one who desires to sell.) He then concluded: “Using the established concept of present value incorporates the discipline of economics into our jurisprudence on takings. at the interest rate of 6% per annum. Thus. we are able to capture just compensation in a more holistic manner.) were to be followed. He lamented: “Instead URISTS R EVIEW of being accorded C ENTER justice and equity. m. Updates and Teasers Page 65 of 99 without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale.. pointing out that it would be very iniquitous to the property owners.25 per sq. in 1940.” . “Clearly.” Then the Court added that there must be payment of interest. the award of interest on the value of the land at the time of taking in 1940 until full payment is adequate compensation to respondents-movants for the deprivation of their property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings.949. This concept is usually summarized this way: Money received today is more valuable than the same amount of money received tomorrow.00.” Further. this is infinitely better than leaving it up to the trial court judge. it would total P J =22. the value of the lot would be P =49.39 On motion for reconsideration. that interest shall be compounded at the time judicial demand is made pursuant to Article 2212 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. .” Accordingly. Such interest. it is only then that the interest earned shall itself earn interest. ” From there. This effectively addresses J. a grant of exemplary damages in the amount of One Million Pesos (P =1. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.” In addition to the payment of interest. any gap on the procedural aspect of the expropriation proceedings will be remedied by the aforequoted provisions. and the judgment R B G would violate the property owner’s right to justice. .. In effect. an award for attorney’s fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200.000. . “considering that respondents-movants were deprived of beneficial ownership over their property for more than seventy (70) years without the benefit of a timely expropriation proceedings. fairness. Moreover.” 6.000. Otherwise. Specifically. In this case of Mactan-Cebu. it proceeded to declare that “[t]hese requirements partake of the nature of implied conditions that should be complied with to enable the condemnor to keep the property expropriated. Velasco’s concerns that sustaining our earlier rulings on the matter would be licensing the government to dispense with constitutional requirements in taking private properties. More particularly.A. the same constitutes due compliance with the constitutional mandate on eminent domain and serves as a basic measure of fairness. 8974 (R.A. the particular public purpose for which the property will be devoted.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. We trust that this established mechanism will surely deter hasty acquisition of private properties in the future without the benefit of immediate payment of the value of the property in accordance with Section 4 of R. it held: “In light of these premises. substantial.000.00) is fair and reasonable. R.00) in favor of respondents-movants is in order. does the former owner have the right to repurchase it? Generally. and equity. being substantive in nature or disturbs substantive rights. namely. provides sufficient guidelines for implementing an expropriation proceeding. 8974). And this traces back to Fery v. if the latter desires to reacquire the same. it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner. the private property owner would be denied due process of law. After noting that Fery was not decided pursuant to our now sacredly held constitutional right that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” The Court also referred to R. Verily. failing which. 28 (1921).A. Lozada.A. “additional compensation shall be awarded to respondents-movants by way of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in view of the government’s taking without the benefit of expropriation proceedings.” And for the overly extended delay. 613 SCRA 618 (2010) When property taken through eminent domain is no longer needed for the public purpose for which it was expropriated. the judgment of BitAR expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw. If not. with respect to the element of public use. 8974 enshrines a new approach towards eminent domain that reconciles the inherent unease attending expropriation proceedings with a position of fundamental equity. 2000. A Library Ofexercise consequent to the Government’s Liberties vis-à-vis of its power ofAn Arsenal eminent Of Arms domain. the expropriator should commit to use the JURISTS property pursuant to the purpose stated REVIEW in the petition CENTER filed. we now expressly hold that the taking of private property. stringent laws and rules are put in place to ensure that owners of real property acquired for national government infrastructure projects are promptly paid just compensation. Updates and Teasers Page 66 of 99 property at the time of taking signifies the real. and to serve as a deterrent to the State from failing to institute such proceedings within the prescribed period under the law. Municipality of Cabanatuan. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. which took effect on November 26. 8974 as sort of a guide in regard to timely payments: “This Court is not unaware that at present. 42 Phil. it held that “[w]hile the foregoing provisions. Accordingly. . Sr. the Court revisited Fery and came up with a new rule. it should file for expropriation another petition for the new purpose. full and ample value of the property. as REVIEW would lack one2017 indispensable element for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain. Moreover. is always subject to the . no.” Then. cannot be retroactively applied to the present case. The government cannot plausibly keep the property it expropriated in any manner JURISTS it pleases and. they would be denied the use of their properties upon a state of affairs that was not conceived nor contemplated when the expropriation was authorized. it stated: “In esse. The same legal situation should hold if the government devotes the property to another public use very much different from the original or deviates from the declared purpose to benefit another private person. who will use it predominantly for that citizen’s own private gain. at the minimum. revisited and abandoned the Fery. such that the state must show. then it behooves the condemnor to return the said property to its private owner. 642 SCRA 384 (2011).” In Vda. The notion. dishonor REVIEW the judgment CENTER This is not in keeping with the idea of expropriation. acquires unrestricted ownership over or a fee simple title to the covered land. A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 40 Heirs of Timoteo Moreno and Maria Rotea v. then the former owners. the landowner being really without a ghost of a chance to defeat the case of the expropriating agency. ownership of which was absolutely transferred by way of an unconditional purchase and sale contract freely entered by two parties. the government merely held the properties condemned in trust until the proposed public use or purpose for which the lots were condemned was actually consummated by the government. In that case. is no longer tenable. the Court reiterated Lozada and Heirs of Moreno. In other words.” BARsaid It also worth highlighting what the Court REVIEW 2017 land compared to purchased realty. utility. The Court said. MCIAA can be compelled by the former landowners to reconvey the parcels of land to them. or advantage. if this particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all pursued.’ If the genuine public necessity – the very reason or condition as it were – allowing. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority. Corollarily. has now acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is of “usefulness. as an eminent domain concept.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. an exacting public purpose to take private property. . or what is productive of general benefit [of the public]. and is peremptorily abandoned. via expropriation proceedings. the private owner is deprived of property against his will. if the latter so desires. It has been said that the direct use by the state of its power to oblige landowners to renounce their productive possession to another citizen. Public use. subject to the return of the amount of just compensation received. then the lot owners Ouanos and Inocians can demand the reconveyance of their old properties after the payment of the condemnation price. the expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears. In such a case. in the process. the fee simple concept really comes into play. Republic. There is really no occasion to apply the ‘fee simple concept’ if the transfer is conditional.” Expounding on the Court’s holding. Updates and Teasers Page 67 of 99 condition that the property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken. the purpose to be specifically alleged or least reasonably deducible from the complaint. a genuine need. that the government. In effect. 413 SCRA 502 (2003).40 making the application of the principle enunciated in Lozada more explicit. if they so desire. of fair play. otherwise. the mandatory requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed. may seek the reversion of the property. therefore. Sr. A condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation. Withal. the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification. then there is no more cogent point for the government’s retention of the expropriated land. failing which it should file another petition for the new purpose. de Ouano v. Since the government failed to perform the obligation that is the basis of the transfer of the property. “failing to keep its end of the bargain. in expropriation.” It was also made clear here that “MCIAA v.. expropriation is forced private property taking. one R B G without obligation to buy and the other without the duty to sell. If not. is offensive to our laws. at the first instance. about expropriated “Expropriated lands should be differentiated from a piece of land. Lozada. subject of course to the return. But to be asked to sacrifice for the common good and yield ownership to the government which reneges on its assurance that the private property shall be for a public purpose may be too much. in itself. Updates and Teasers Page 68 of 99 The taking of a private land in expropriation proceedings is always conditioned on its continued devotion to its public purpose. “The statutory requirement to pay a provisional amount equivalent to the full Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuation does not substitute for the judicial determination of just compensation.” 8. It is essential to a sovereign.” 7. the same are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. Thus. not just compensation. . It allows frontloading the costs of the exercise so that it is the government instrumentality that bears the burden and not the owner whose property is taken. Inc. the expropriation complaint should be dismissed by the trial court. the procedure by which the government takes possession of private property. with this clarification – “The power of eminent domain is an inherent competence of the state. theACourt said:Of “Considering Liberties that the National Power Corporation Library vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms is no longer using respondents’ properties for the purpose of building the Substation Project. Republic Act No. Borbon. such as when “the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose. The payment of a provisional value may also serve R B G as indemnity for damages in the event that the expropriation does not succeed. Republic v. a ENTER form of a frontloading cost.” The provisional value providedJfor in R. Heirs of Saturnino Q. National Power Corporation v. The mischief thus depicted is not at all far-fetched with the continued application of Fery.” With regard to the issue as to whether an expropriator may discontinue an expropriation proceeding that it instituted. The payment to the property owner of a preliminary amount is one wayBAR to R EVIEW ensure that 2017 property will not be condemned arbitrarily. 8974. This provides an added dimension to abandon Fery.A. Even as the Court deliberates on these consolidated cases. if it has not yet sold. and how may be limited by law. the manner of its exercise such as which government instrumentality can be delegated with the power to condemn. once the purpose is terminated or peremptorily abandoned. may seek its reversion. it may be allowed to . under what conditions. there is an uncontroverted allegation that the MCIAA is poised to sell. 8974 does these. As a necessary corollary. Posada. then the former owner. To be compelled to renounce dominion over a piece of land is.R URISTS 8974 isC EVIEW No. “The expropriator who has taken possession of the property subject of expropriation is obliged to pay reasonable compensation to the landowner for the period of such possession although the proceedings had been discontinued on the ground that the public purpose for the expropriation had meanwhile ceased. . the areas in question to Cebu Property Ventures. but it should not be read as superseding the power of this court to promulgate rules of procedure. . if he so desires. there is need to pay disturbance compensation. “However.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. at the very least. an already bitter pill to swallow for the owner. including development firms.” And in regard to the governing law for expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects. But it would be worse if the power of eminent domain were deliberately used as a subterfuge to benefit another with influence and power in the political process. 745 SCRA 40 (2015) In case of an aborted expropriation. is outlined primarily in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Expropriation. of the just compensation received. our existing rules should be read in conjunction with the law that limits and conditions the power of eminent domain. 752 SCRA 550 (2015) When the expropriation is discontinued. The case will proceed only if the trial court’s order of expropriation became final and executory and the expropriation causes prejudice to the property owner. ” Entry was in 1977 to 1978 without the knowledge or consent of owners. However. Manalastas. cannot be countenanced by the Court. just compensation is for the courts to determine. a complaint was filed by the landowners demanding removal of the power lines and its accessories and payment of damages. Spouses Heracleo and Ramona Tecson.” The Court also condemned the expropriator to pay exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the irregular way the property was taken. Unson Company. “As held in the Resolution dated April 21. only the courts may determine the rightful compensation in accordance with the law and evidence presented by the parties. the grant of the Motion to Withdraw carries with it the necessary consequence of making the trial court’s order of condemnation final and executory. or in the alternative. if any.C. “expropriation proceedings must be dismissed when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose. government agencies should be admonished and made to realize that B itsAR REVIEW negligence and2017 inaction in failing to commence the proper expropriation proceedings before taking private property. v. Updates and Teasers Page 69 of 99 discontinue with the expropriation proceedings. additional JURISTS compensation in the form of exemplary REVIEW damages CENTERfees should likewise be awarded and attorney’s as a consequence of the government agency’s illegal occupation of the owner’s property for a very long time. “[t]he withdrawal of the Petition before this court will have no practical effect other than to make the trial court’s order of condemnation final and executory. C. the National Power Corporation should file the proper Motion to Withdraw before the trial court. It could not therefore determine whether damages have been suffered as a result of the expropriation. it would be its burden to plead and prove to the trial court its reasons for discontinuing with the expropriation while the respondents may also plead and prove damages incurred from the commencement of the expropriation.” And. the trial court’s order already became final and executory. as provided for by law. despite the same being erroneous. for the guidance of everyone. In 2000. Accordingly. the Court noted that respondents have not yet been deprived of their property since the National Power Corporation was never able to take possession. Further. Second. not the litigants. In order to prevent this absurdity.” Accordingly.Arsenal Of Arms Here. the expropriation case already caused prejudice to the landowner. who decide on the proper interpretation or application of the law and. 2015 in Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways. It is incongruous for the court below to uphold a proposition merely because it was recommended by a party. the case needed to be remanded to the trial court to determine whether respondents have already been prejudiced by the expropriation.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 785 SCRA 202 (2016) Where the entire property is not taken and the remaining portions are practically rendered useless for A Librarydamages the owner. 9. thus. payment of the fair market value of the affected areas. The Court said that “valuation of the land for purposes of determining just compensation should not include the inflation rate of the Philippine Peso because the delay in payment of the price of expropriated land is sufficiently recompensed through payment of interest on the market value of the land as of the time of taking from the landowner. subject to the approval of the court. the government already took possession of the property. Inc. and without any compensation made. then consequential Of Liberties would vis-à-vis have to be An paid. without any expropriation proceedings being initiated. following the expropriation of a .” In this case.. not the parties. 782 SCRA 363 (2016) “The bone of contention in this case is the inclusion of the inflation rate of the Philippine Peso in determining the just compensation due to respondents. et al. except when: First. R B G Republic v. resulting in pecuniary loss to the owner. “It is the courts. and Lastly. National Power Corporation v.” 10. Indeed.” whereupon. if the trial court. for the suit is not based on tort. moral. the entire doctrine of inverse condemnation is predicated on the proposition that a taking may JURISTS occur without such formal proceedings. The former. even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. 11.m. even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. two irregularly shaped dangling lots with an area of 750 sq. The fact that the owner rather than the expropriator brings the former does not change the essential nature of the suit as an inverse condemnation. 656 SCRA 60 (2011)41 And what is inverse condemnation? How does it differ from a claim for damages? The Court had occasion to discuss the same in another case involving the National Power Corporation and its tunnels bored deep under the lands of unsuspecting owners. simply describes an action that is the ‘inverse’ or ‘reverse’ of a condemnation proceeding. agreed that Unson was entitled to just compensation with respect to the said portions. The RTC and the CA. but the latter emanates from the transgression of a right. National Power Corporation v. were left.’ ENTER as a common understanding of that phrase would suggest. and the exercise results to the damage of another. it would run against the equitable proscription of unjust enrichment for the owner to still retain ownership over it. . The two actions are radically different in nature and purpose. The Court explained that an “action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency differs from the action for damages. While the typical taking occurs when the government acts to condemn property in the exercise of its power of eminent domain. in arriving at the amount of just compensation already factored in the consequential damages suffered by the owner for the unusable 750 sq. however.m. a legal wrong is committed and the wrongdoer is held responsible. Eminent Domain. The Clause easily yields to the demands of police power such that the occasions in which it may prevail could more be the exception than the rule. 671 SCRA 266 (2012) . dangling lots were not expropriated by petitioner. When a right is exercised in a manner not conformable with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and like provisions on human relations in the Civil Code. nominal. Updates and Teasers Page 70 of 99 portion of a property. It would very well be contrary to the clear language of the Constitution to bar the recovery of just compensation for private property taken for a public use solely on the basis of statutory prescription. §381): “Inverse condemnation is a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant. lots. it is almost seen as a relic from days past where it must have had its grandeur. .R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the Court referenced Corpus Juris Secundum (29A CJS. Indeed.m. or exemplary. temperate. “The impairment clause is no longer A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 41 See also National Power Corporation v. CONTRACT CLAUSE R B G The weakest guarantee in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand. the former arises from the exercise by the State of its power of eminent domain against private property for public use.” For Legal Research purposes. “There is no question that the remaining 750 sq. . The action to recover just compensation is based on the Constitution while the action for damages is predicated on statutory enactments.” BAR REVIEW 2017 M. the latter action seeks to vindicate a legal wrong through damages. REVIEW The phrase ‘inverseCcondemnation.” And. has the objective to recover the value of property taken in fact by the governmental defendant. but on the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay. also known as inverse condemnation. Saludares. liquidated. which may be actual. Clearly. 306 SCRA 750 (1999) . the Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the State’s power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration. Most present-day contracts are of that nature. in fact. in the real sense of the term and where the non-impairment clause of the Constitution can rightly be invoked. Ltd. Can this be availed of a juridical person? In Re: Query of Mr. It held that Section 40 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 requiring the approval of the President with respect to assignment or transfer of FTAAs. lawfully entered into by them under enabling laws in which the government. Secretary of Finance. Tax exemptions of this kind may not be revoked without impairing the obligations of contracts. “The clear intent and precise language of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court indicate that only a natural party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant. is JURISTS REVIEW working for CENTER indigent and underprivileged people is of no moment.. ” BAR REVIEW 2017 R B G 42 Juarez v. thereby being exempted from the payment of filing fees. that the contractual tax exemptions.. Pty. the Court had occasion to apply the Contract Clause. Inc. This may mean that those who cannot afford filing fees may get some form of accommodation.45 In Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. that “the Good Shepherd Foundation. A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Philippine Veterans Bank. such as being allowed to litigate as paupers. acting in its private capacity. 192 SCRA 257 (1990) 44 Tolentino v. v. are not to be confused with tax exemptions granted under franchises.”42 Nevertheless. are not entitled. the Court held that only individuals may be granted exemption from filing fees as indigents – foundations.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 214 SCRA 475 (1992) 43 National Development Company v. POVERTY AND LEGAL PROTECTION The Constitution guarantees free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies. however. if made applicable retroactively to the Columbio FTAA. such as those contained in government bonds or debentures. Roger C. would be tantamount to an impairment of the obligations under said contract as it would effectively restrict the right of the parties thereto to assign or transfer their interests in the said FTAA. N. sheds its cloak of authority and waives its governmental immunity. a condition that only a natural person can suffer.” Accordingly. Updates and Teasers Page 71 of 99 inviolate. 596 SCRA 401 (2009). the principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public welfare that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the legislature in the interest of the greater number. Court of Appeals. are those agreed to by the taxing authority in contracts. Province of Laguna.”43 Insofar as the taxing power is concerned. Inc. “[w]hile it is true that the police power is superior to the impairment clause. the Constitution has explicitly premised the free access clause on a person’s poverty. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation. and likewise mandates that adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”44 And. even if serving indigents. WMC Resources Int’l. These contractual tax exemptions. there are many who now believe that is an anachronism in the present-day society. 507 SCRA 315 (2006). 235 SCRA 630 (1994) A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 45 Manila Electric Company v. it has also been observed that: “In truth. The State shall endeavor to provide URISTS EVIEW ENTER the victim with psychological evaluation if available under the circumstances. 530 U. Supreme Court revisited Miranda and came up with a declaration that Miranda is of constitutional moorings. Right to Physical.” which could not therefore be overturned by Congress as it represents the Court’s reading of what the Constitution requires.. he/she shall J R C be provided by the State with a competent and independent doctor to conduct physical examination. He may waive his rights. among others. even constitutionalized at that. executed in the presence and assistance of his/her counsel. Marra. detained or under custodial investigation.50 But when do the Miranda Rights become available? The Court has come up with apparently conflicting rulings. and his loyalty to the cause of his client must be beyond reproach. Ting Lan Uy. provided the same is done in the presence of a lawyer. and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. and People v. Deniega. relationshipOf Arms between lawyers. It adds the right. including the assistance of counsel. 320 SCRA 140 [1999]) AbyLibrary Also. Jr. Jose.a. otherwise there would be no point keeping one’s silence at trial if the damning statements had already been secured during the investigation. 63 SCRA 4 (1975) 48 In 2000. the lawyer must be competent and independent.47 the same is now part of the easily-forgotten past. 37 SCRA 450 (1971). Furthermore. United States. Then. because by so doing. 12. 475 46 Miranda v.. The doctrine has become firmly entrenched in law and jurisprudence. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS A basket of rights that was refused recognition or parsimoniously applied by the Court in the past has now grown and expanded to afford protection greater than the text of the original.vis-à-vis AntheArsenal as in many areas.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 9745 [2009]). BAR REVIEW * * * * * 2017 Any person who does not wish to avail of the rights under this provision may knowingly and voluntarily waive such rights in writing. It is meant to implement the guarantees in Section 12 of the Bill of Rights against torture and other related acts. the U.49 The rights given to persons somehow thought of having committed a crime or those under custodial investigation – a.S. they are given the opportunity to exercise their privilege not to incriminate themselves.k. He must be present from beginning to end. Updates and Teasers Page 72 of 99 O. While the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant past refused to apply the Miranda doctrine46 in People v. If the person arrested is a female. and likewise did not recognize any retroactive application of the 1973 Constitution version of the Miranda warnings. In People v. 50 R B G A awyer who notarizes the sworn statement of a suspect whom he assists seriously compromises his independence. which may be waived. 436 (1966) 47 Magtoto v. Labtan.48 In regard to expanding the rights of suspects.A. – Before and after interrogation. a “constitutional decision. No. (People v. any person arrested. 251 SCRA 626 [1995]) . every person arrested. to be informed of one’s right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his/her own choice. she shall be attended to preferably by a female doctor. In the language of the Fundamental Law. including his/her immediate family. take note of the newly minted Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R. (People v. he is also given a chance to have the assistance of a lawyer.S. Medical and Psychological Examination. suspects – are meant to ensure that they are afforded the chance to exercise whatever protection is due them in any criminal prosecution. 384 U. 236 SCRA 565 (1994). to make sure that the person under investigation knows what that privilege of silence is all about. If such person cannot afford the services of his/her own doctor. Arizona. (Dickerson v. detained or under custodial investigation shall have the right to be informed of his/her right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his/her own choice. Thus.S. at minimum. lawyers engaged Ofgenerally the police are Liberties suspect. shall have the right to immediate access to proper and adequate medical treatment. 428 [2000]) 49 SEC. provided it is in writing and in the presence of counsel. Manguera. he vouches for the regularity of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the sworn statement by the police. 51 Moreover.com/pdf/vol. XLVIII (January-December 2004). other police officers. “[B]ecause of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt.pdf) . Endino. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. 334 SCRA 673 (2000). However. plus the wife and mother of the accused. Ordoño. 7438 does not propose that they appear in the alternative or as a substitute for counsel. this did not cure in any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation. Gorospe. Then.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.53 51 People v. (http://ustlawreview. Reyes. 352 SCRA 307 (2001). 53 A Library See Rene B.A. Morada. Updates and Teasers Page 73 of 99 SCRA 248 (2005). This element of knowing and voluntary waiver may only be BAR safeguarded – in the spirit of the Miranda REVIEW doctrine 2017 – through the assistance of counsel timely made. since the place had no lawyers. He must also be so in substance. 307 SCRA 362 (1999). Municipal Mayor.” UST Law Review. Of Liberties “Beyond Stonehill: vis-à-vis Extending the AnRule Exclusionary Arsenal Of Arms to Uncounselled Media Confessions. Chief of Police.”52 With the foregoing pronouncements of the Court relative to admissions or confessions made to media men. at 131-190. Nonetheless. however. The rights are precisely intended to afford him the opportunity to avail of his right against self- incrimination at a time when he might not know any better – the Miranda Doctrine was precisely intended to make the hapless suspect realize that he has the right not to answer the questions asked by the police which are precisely intended to elicit incriminating answers. In People v. it held that there is no substitute for lawyers. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system. and to witness the voluntary execution by the accused of their statements before the police. in this case of People v. The Court held the confession inadmissible. Basay. nobody could take the place of a lawyer. How about media interviews? In People v. the lawyer should not simply be a lawyer in form. the Court advised trial courts not to simplistically admit such confessions. the Court held. it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. or the one singled out for investigation for possible participation in the crime under scrutiny. “To the credit of the police. also. also carried the same message that media men must not be acting for police. and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases. in effect. Even as it commended the police.” Given the historical background and the rationale for the Miranda Rights. it would seem to be the better view that the rights kick in the moment a person has already become the suspect. a real lawyer and not one who took up Law but never made it beyond the bar examinations. 219 SCRA 404 (1993) R B G 52 People v. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. the statement of the accused was taken in the presence of Parish Priest. they requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor of Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility of coercion. For in all probability. should it not also consider having the right to be advised of one’s Miranda rights – including the right to counsel – to be done prior to any interviews made by the media? The right to counsel and the right JURISTS not to incriminate oneself might become RifEVIEW useless the printCand ENTER broadcast reporters are allowed to make the interviews even before the suspect had the opportunity to think for himself in a voluntary and an informed manner whether to speak or not. 581 SCRA 691 (2009). the police. we find this line: “The mantle of protection afforded by the above-quoted constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for the investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the offense although not yet in custody. that the rights would only be available if a person has already been arrested and in custody.” R.XLVIII/Articles/Beyond_Stonehill. Vol. People v. “Clearly. actually the only one. Updates and Teasers Page 74 of 99 1.An Arsenal he could Of Arms not be considered as an independent counsel for the purpose of assisting a suspect. including the Barangay Chairman. his silence should not be taken against him. already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by Article III. the PC and the NBI and such other police agencies R B G in our government. She was. in this particular instance. 423 SCRA 374 (2004). the Court here said that “[a]s a rule.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes.” 2. hence. Sr. “The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into B an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacingAR R 2017 EVIEW procedures where the potentiality for compulsion. physical police interrogation and psychological. the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. domino method of adjudication. 615 SCRA 548 (2010) In People v. The Court observed: “Arguably. Oh. may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III.’ The barangay chairman is not deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. Ulit. Section 12 (1). 435 SCRA 23 (2004). The Court observed that they are recognized by the local government units to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation. well. Thus. Lauga. Malngan. In fact. no. . Guillen. it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant’s silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt.”54 Taking the teachings and spirit of Malngan further. and thereafter asked the accused if he raped the complainant. it cannot be successfully claimed that the appellant’s statement before the barangay chairman is inadmissible. The suspect admitted and executed a sworn statement to that effect. When accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001.) In People v. she was already a suspect. Section 12 of the Constitution. People v. As intended by the 1971 Constitutional Convention.” (Both Ulit and Samus were en banc decisions.” As such. in the fire that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of Roberto Separa. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot 54 J In People v. any extrajudicial confession taken without a counsel is inadmissible in evidence. when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of “AAA” at the police station. of the Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. the Court considered the confessions made to a barangay chairman inadmissible since there was no Miranda Warning given prior to questioning. of the Constitution. is forcefully apparent. 3. 779 SCRA 170 (2016) In regard to police line-ups. any inquiry they make has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III. Tomaquin. he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. this covers ‘investigation conducted by police authorities which will include investigations conducted by the municipal police. Under these circumstances. Thus. therefore. 503 SCRA 294 (2006). The Court said that the uncounselled sworn statement of the accused was considered admissible because he was not then under arrest nor under custodial investigation. URISTS R the Barangay EVIEW C ENTER chairman ordered the barangay tanods to “invite and bring” the accused to the barangay hall. 710 SCRA 533 (2013) Could silence and passivity at a time when the complainant-victim is confronting the suspect following his arrest be taken as evidence of guilt? The Court said. this right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in evidence. People v. Section 12(1) and (3). a police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation. the Court noted that a barangay captain “is called upon to enforce the law and ordinances in his barangayAand Library Ofand ensure peace Liberties vis-à-vis order at all times. the Court held in Lauga that Bantay Bayan members or voluntary barangay-based anti-crime or neighborhood watch groups should similarly be covered by the Miranda Doctrine. Accordingly. At that stage. Pepino. the barangay tanods. Updates and Teasers Page 75 of 99 be claimed by the accused during identification in a police lineup.” Thus. “[a]n erroneously convicted accused who is denied bail loses his liberty to pay a debt to society he has never owed. entitled to another set of rights. there is no provision prohibiting him R B G or her from filing a motion for bail. detention for BARan R 2017of more than two (2) years is a serious EVIEWperiod extended deprivation of a potential extraditee’s fundamental right to liberty. the trial court should give the accused the opportunity to present his evidence. Court of Appeals.55 With regard to bail.” P. Fundamental among the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the rights of every person to life.” In his dissenting opinion. the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Once a person under investigation is found to be probably guilty of the commission of a crime. it is characterized JURISTSofRliberty by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation EVIEW CENTER on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also “the machinery of criminal law” – obviously. while the Philippines’ extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee. bears all earmarks of a criminal process . 389 SCRA 623 (2002). an extradition proceeding. Also. 615 SCRA 619 (2010). “when the suggestiveness is principally due to a premature media presentation of the accused coupled with the accusation by law enforcers. Olalia. however. that “[b]ail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in pretrial liberty and society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial. and due process.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. while ostensibly administrative.” Now. In Government of the United States of America v. it saw no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases – clearly. It further explained that while extradition is not a criminal proceeding. By any standard. to being informed of the charges. the majority ruled that a potential extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. An irregular out-of-court identification taints any subsequent identification made in court. the Court reasoned out that if bail can be granted in deportation cases.. It cannot simply proceed to convict him. the Court had a change of mind. he is assured of the guarantee of being heard before judgment is rendered. a right to due process under the Constitution.” Otherwise stated. as regards potential extraditees. Jr. he is charged in court thereby becoming an accused. Alcanzado. speedy. Purganan. take note of the metamorphosis. impartial and public trial. Through all of these. 521 SCRA 470 (2007). from the presumption of innocence to an opportunity to avail of momentary liberty through bail. facing his accusers and testing their credibility. citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. . it is reasonable to assume that the subsequent identification is already tainted. Justice Leonen had this to say: “Premature media exposure of suspected criminals affects the integrity of the identification made by a witness. Law enforcers fail to prevent undue influence and suggestion when they present suspects to the media before the actual identification by a witness. the Court said in Leviste v. liberty. to setting out his defense by himself or counsel. the Court held that ifAn Arsenal a demurrer Of Arms to evidence with leave of court is denied. It noted that the modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. and compulsory process for the production of witnesses and evidence in his behalf. 428 SCRA Of681Liberties vis-à-vis (2004). Revisiting Purganan. 55 A Library In People v. Confronted anew with the question in Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. the Court said: “It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. However.” Accordingly. and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial. his long years of public service. and voluntary surrender. We also do not ignore that at an earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. age. more than 90 years of age. He petitioned the Court that he be allowed to post bail in view of the peculiar his circumstances – poor health. 543 SCRA 196 (2008). Indeed. His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder. [B]ail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial. The Court held: “In our view. BAR REVIEW he should 2017bail. Sandiganbayan (Third Division). accordingly. regardless of the crime charged. Caloocan City in Criminal Cases Nos. . 121. in Leviste v. Thus. and of frail health. that such presumption only comes to an end upon final conviction. the prospective extraditee bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.. the petitioner.” Also. . has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country. 615 SCRA 650 (2010). the assumption is that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. the Court declared: “After conviction by the trial court. he alreadyJURISTS evincedREVIEW a similar C ENTER personal disposition of respect for the legal processes. provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. 682 SCRA 94 (2012). Sr. 356 SCRA 471 (2008). formal or otherwise. the presumption of innocence terminates and.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Court of Appeals. should be A Library Of Liberties of allowed independently vis-à-vis An of the merits Arsenal Of Arms the charge. and reiterated in Qui v. and history’s judgment of him being at stake. or whenever so required by the trial court. the constitutional right to bail ends. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial. 767 SCRA 282 (2015) In this case. the Court held in Trillanes IV v. RTC. R B G The Court further declared: “Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused. Angeles. The Court obliged. the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. “[t]he currently fragile state be granted of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail. and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. Pimentel. People.” 1. the Court held that the applicable standard of due process for potential extraditees seeking bail should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings – in the latter. the Court found that there was no question at all that Enrile’s advanced age and ill health required special medical attention. . his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. denying him bail . Updates and Teasers Page 76 of 99 Nevertheless. On the right to bail. An extradition proceeding being sui generis. the Court took note of his poor health as a justification in his admission to bail.” The Court then went on to hold that admission to bail in otherwise non-bailable offenses is subject to judicial discretion. was charged with the non- bailable offense of plunder. Br. Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse. In the case of the petitioner. The potential extraditee must prove by “clear and convincing proof” that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all orders and processes of the extradition court. and Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. in the former. With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives. Enrile v. With regard to the question as to when the presumption of innocence comes to an end. the Court highlighted the delicate balance between seemingly competing yet certainly complementary rights – the right of the accused to a fair trial free from prejudice caused by undue publicity.” 2. as thus modified. The Court explained: “The rationale for an outright total prohibition was shrouded. as it is now. except when the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. Now.” The Court further stated that “the right of an accused to a fair trial is not A Library OfbyLiberties the Court in itsvis-à-vis An resolution. the Supreme Court did not allow for live radio-TV coverage of the trials involved therein. it only requires the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law. When committed through falsification of official/public documents.” 3. the prescribed penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal which ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. How should the term “punishable” be construed? The Court said: “In Our mind. while. Article 48 of the RPC on complex crimes does not change the nature of the constituent offenses. Likewise. under Article 249 of the RPC.’” The Court further pointed out that “[i]t would be the height of absurdity to deny Valdez the right to bail and grant her the same only after trial if it turns out that there is no complex crime committed. maintaining the same underlying principles upheld in the two previous cases. 1991.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. and which fear. Yes. 360 SCRA 248 (2001). Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases Against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan. Compliance with regulations. may be dealt with by safeguards and safety nets under existing rules and exacting regulations. Aquino’s Libel Case57 and Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Pro hac vice. at the same time. 652 SCRA 1 (2011)56 In Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. In this day and age. odious and hateful. This penalty. and interfere with the integrity. inside the comfortable cocoon of a fearedJspeculation URISTS RwhichEVIEW noCscientific ENTER study in the Philippine setting confirms. is referred to as the ‘imposable penalty. Further. in regard to the so-called Maguindanao Massacre where there were 57 victims and 197 accused. not imposable. This is what is referred to as the ‘prescribed penalty. the Code provides for attending or modifying circumstances which when present in the commission of a felony affects the computation of the penalty to be imposed on a convict. the RPC does not intend to classify malversation as a capital offense. penalty. Here. dignity and solemnity of judicial proceedings. it is about time to craft a win-win situation that BARadministration shall not compromise rights in the criminal REVIEW 2017 of justice. the Court is being asked once more to allow for such live broadcast of the proceedings. . Updates and Teasers Page 77 of 99 despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.” The Court explained: “The RPC provides for an initial penalty as a general prescription for the felonies defined therein which consists of a range of period of time.’ For instance. Arsenal Of Arms 56 This was subsequently reconsidered 23 October 2012 57 En Banc Resolution of October 22. Estrada. Would the request fare any better. the term “punishable” should refer to prescribed. People v. 776 SCRA 672 (2015) Bail is a matter of right. provides a workable solution to the concerns raised in these R B G administrative matters. not curtailment of a right. To note. Valdez. it is unjust for Us to give a stamp of approval in depriving the accused person’s constitutional right to bail for allegedly committing a complex crime that is not even considered as inherently grievous. if any. and the right of the people to know what is happening inside the courthouse. sacrifice press freedom and allied rights. for the live broadcast of the proceedings subject of the case. inter alia: “In a constitutional sense. “One apparent circumstance that sets the Maguindanao Massacre cases apart from the earlier cases is the impossibility of accommodating even the parties to the cases – the private complainants/families of the victims and other witnesses – inside the courtroom. What more if the right itself commands that a reasonable number of the general public be allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place inside the courtroom.”58 On motion for reconsideration. The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity of the members of the public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed. The right to a public trial belongs to the accused. beyond mere curiosity. it is not necessary to allow the press to broadcast R B G the proceedings here and abroad. the Court modified its earlier resolution on the issue and said. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial. open and public trial. that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the fact that the accused has legal remedies after the fact is of no moment.” The Court then proceeded to lay down certain guidelines toward addressing the concerns mentioned in Aquino and Estrada. such as in internet research not only for cases but also for digests. since the damage has been done and may be irreparable. It is the use and regulation thereof that need fine-tuning. Law and technology can work to the advantage and furtherance of the various rights herein involved. the peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that the proceedings already necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of families. The impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in a courtroom that will accommodate all the interested parties. but the Court may allow the opening of closed-circuit viewing areas outside the courtroom where those who may be so minded can come and watch the proceedings. It cannot be gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of the 197 accused have as much interest.” Making use of the totality of circumstances test.” How about the need to accommodate BAR those REVIEW 2017be personally interested to witness the who may proceedings? “To address the physical impossibility of accommodating the large number of interested parties inside the courtroom in Camp Bagong Diwa. The tendency of high profile case like the subject case to generate undue publicity with its concomitant undesirable effects weights heavily against broadcasting the trial. the Court paved the way. public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Towards the end the Court concluded: “Indeed. the Court cannot gloss over what advances technology has to offer in distilling the abstract discussion of key constitutional precepts into the workable context. Technology tends to provide the only solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom. within the contours of defined guidelines. pro hac vice. It bears noting at this juncture that the prosecution and the defense have listed more than 200 witnesses each. reliable or otherwise? . to attend or monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial participants. Updates and Teasers Page 78 of 99 incompatible to a free press. whether private complainants or accused. is unfortunate enough.” The Court explained that “[e]ven before considering what is a ‘reasonable number of the public’ who may observe the proceedings. Technology per se has always been neutral. The accused’s right to a public trial should not be confused with the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know as a justification for allowing the live broadcast of the trial. This 58 A Library Have you noticed how Ofuse you have made Liberties vis-à-vis of modern means An Arsenal of communications Of Arms and entertainment as tools in your study of law. Moreover. to satisfy the imperative of a transparent. It must be pointed out that the fundamental right to due process of JURISTS the accused REVIEW cannot beC ENTER afforded after the fact but must be protected at the first instance. 4. upon doctor’s advice. real-time viewing grants to a larger audience the opportunity to monitor the proceedings as if they were inside the trial court but at the same time obviates the massive publicity entailed in media broadcasting. In all cases. The JURISTS Prosecution wanted to take his deposition REVIEW in Cambodia Che since ENTER was allegedly a frail old businessman who was then being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos. The Public Information Office and the Office of the Court Administrator shall coordinate and assist the trial courts involved on the physical set-up of the camera and equipment. b. Koronadal. and General Santos City where the relatives of the accused and the victims reside. h. c. as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their . within the Camp Bagong Diwa’s premises. The requirement is the ‘safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts’ as it enables the judge to test the witness’ credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. he could not make the long travel to the Philippines. Updates and Teasers Page 79 of 99 out-of-court. No panning and zooming shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or downplaying incidents in the proceedings. An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre cases may be made both for documentary purposes and for transmittal to specified closed-circuit viewing areas: (i) outside the courtroom. subject to this Court’s supervision. subject to this Court’s supervision. Cambodia and that. and (ii) selected trial courts in Maguindanao. The Presiding Judge shall issue the appropriate orders to insure compliance with this directive and for the imposition of appropriate sanctions for its violation. f. e. The trial court granted such request but the RTC annulled the MeTC BAR REVIEW order while the 2017 Court of Appeals sided with the MeTC. This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to R B G the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to face. People. The original audio-recording shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for the preservation and exhibition in accordance with law.” The Court then provided the following new guidelines for the audio-visual recording and streaming of the video coverage: a. This is similar to the procedure adopted by this Court in allowing members of the public to watch its oral arguments at a viewing area outside of the Session Hall where a large monitor projects the images and sounds from inside the Session Hall in real time. The High Tribunal disagreed with the appellate court. 677 SCRA 213 (2012) This involves a prosecution for Other Deceits brought by a foreign national (Cambodian). “The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court. d. Said trial courts shall be identified by the Office of the Court Administrator. The audio-visual recording of the proceedings and its transmittal shall be made under the control of the trial court which may issue supplementary directives. South Cotabato. the witnesses should be excluded from watching the proceedings. A single fixed compact camera shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full-view of the sala of the trial court. The transmittal of the audio-visual recording from inside the courtroom to the closed-circuit viewing areas shall be conducted in such a way that the least physical disturbance shall be ensured in keeping with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings. It is not without exceptions. as th exigency requires. The streaming of this video coverage within the different court premises in Mindanao will be installed so that the relatives of the parties and the interested public can watch the proceedings in real time. A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms however. g. These viewing areas shall be under the control of the trial court judges involved.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. The camera and the necessary equipment shall be operated and controlled only by a duly designated official or employee of the Supreme Court. The Cambodian complainant was able to attend first hearing but then was subsequently unable to return. Go v. whether inside the courtroom or in the designated viewing areas. The viewing area will be installed to accommodate the public who want to observe the proceedings within the Camp Bagong Diwa premises. nor will it warrant the ENTER release of the convict by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus. the State itself must resort to deposition-taking sparingly if it is to guard against accusations of violating the right of the accused to meet the witnesses against him face to face. 325 SCRA 525 (2000) . The proper remedy is the reconstitution of judicial records which is as much a duty of the prosecution as of the defense. the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos. the Court held that the grant of relief R B G in a habeas corpus proceeding is not predicated on the disappearance of a person.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. in Martinez v. inBSubayno AR REVIEW v. 499 SCRA 234 (2006). WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS. Mendoza. more particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial. Great care must be observed in the taking and use of depositions of prosecution witnesses to the end that no conviction of an accused will rely on ex parte affidavits and depositions.” Q.” And.” The Court further noted: “Certainly. Enrile. “[t]he mere loss or destruction of the records of a criminal case subsequent to conviction of the accused will J not REVIEW render the URISTS judgment Cof conviction void.” How about if it is the accused seeking that form of accommodation? “It must be emphasized that while the prosecution must provide the accused every opportunity to take the deposition of witnesses that are material to his defense in order to avoid charges of violating the right of the accused to compulsory process. the testimonial examination should be made before the court. AMPARO AND KALIKASAN The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus affords one who may be unlawfully detained an opportunity to have an expeditious inquiry into the nature of the deprivation of liberty such that if there is no legal basis for the same then he should be set free. in that regard.” Accordingly. “for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases. Rule 119 cannot be ignored without violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process.2017 145 SCRA 282 (1986). Updates and Teasers Page 80 of 99 depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. It also affords a remedy in custody fights in the domestic battle grounds to determine who may have better right over a person who could not take care of his own affairs. or at least before the judge. which is especially intolerable when the witness’ testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. the stringent procedure under Section 15. or as a A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 59 Feria v.” Would it make any difference if it is the prosecution or the accused seeking deposition? “[W]here it is the prosecution that seeks to depose the complaining witness against the accused. the Supreme Court said that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person.” It also explained that “[t]here is a great deal of difference between the face-to-face confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence of the presiding judge and the cross-examination of a witness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the absence of a trial judge. It may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person. to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his credibility. Cambodia. Then. where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15. but on his illegal detention. Court of Appeals. However.”59 Years before the writ of amparo. “[s]ince the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than the court where the case is pending. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. Here. It covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. act or omission against the aggrieved person. 61 J URISTS See also the Rule on the Writ of Habeas R Data discussedEVIEW C in the section ENTER on Searches and Seizures. as a measure of the remedies the Court shall craft.63 Among the significant characteristics and features of the remedy of writ of amparo are the following: (a) it does not determine criminal. Macapagal-Arroyo. or [iii]Of thoseLiberties who carry. He is also bound to disclose all relevant information in his possession pertaining to the threat. Updates and Teasers Page 81 of 99 means of finding out who has specifically abducted or caused the disappearance of a certain person.60 This is a remedy available to any person whose right to life.M. if the whereabouts of an individual were never hidden. Now. civil or administrative liability. It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. pursuant to A. or the surrounding circumstances about the latter. 660 SCRA 84 (2011). Manalo. No. When forcible taking and disappearance – not arrest and detention – have been alleged. among them. (b) it simply determines responsibility and accountability. or [ii] who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and A Library who carry the burden of disclosure. it serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. under the Writ of Amparo it is not enough for the respondent to simply disclaim any knowledge of the aggrieved person subject of the writ. or of a private individual or entity. there would be no need for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses. butvis-à-vis have failed toAn Arsenal discharge. in an enforced disappearance. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. In contrast to the writ of habeas corpus. 760 SCRA 363 (2015). 62 Rodriguez v. or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence. as well as to state other matters relevant to the investigation. or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. it was held there was no need for issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo B R AR EVIEW in regard to an alien who was arrested by Bureau of Immigration 2017 agents pursuant to a Warrant of Deportation where there was no refusal to give information on his whereabouts. we have also the writ of amparo. its resolution and the prosecution of the case. act or omission. or the identity of those keeping a person. R B G by action or omission. Rather.62 Further. Since the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not reach out to cases where the fact of detention is denied. citing Secretary of National Defense v. since the fundamental function of the writ of amparo is to cause the disclosure of details concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of an aggrieved party. and consider 60 Effective 24 October 2007. Of Arms the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.61 The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief. Accountability. the Supreme Court came up with the Writ of Amparo. as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. 07-0-12-SC (25 September 2007). and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent investigation and action. . but criminal investigation and proceedings. or his whereabouts are uncertain.64 (c) it allows for flexibility in regard to rules of evidence. 568 SCRA 1 (2008) 63 Mison v. or any attempt to conceal him. 64 Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. the proper remedy is not habeas corpus proceedings. Gallegos. That was then. refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those [i] who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility. He is also duty bound to state the steps or actions taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of said person and the person or persons responsible for the threat. adopting the doctrine of totality of evidence in that courts consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality. as provided for in the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law. trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an R B G environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein.M.A. non- governmental organization. 662 SCRA 312 (2011). but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ is. thus allowing for the admission of hearsay evidence. is not included among the enumeration of rights for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available.A. or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency. Therefore. Meaning. liberty and security. “As clarified in Navia. 554 SCRA 208 (2008).A.” (Art. 67 “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. the Amparo Rule is now a procedural law anchored. 9851. Macapagal-Arroyo. courts should read A.” Related to the foregoing is the Writ of Continuing Mandamus which provides BaAR REVIEW remedy when any2017 agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. Mison v. Pardico.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. No.. support or acquiescence of. health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. A. abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty. §15) . No. 09-6-8-SC. with the enactment of R.. Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity (R. No. (b) carried out by. detention. reassignment or separation from the service of respondents does not necessarily terminate their amenability to the amparo proceedings.67 the Court has come up with the Writ of Kalikasan (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases [A. It has also been held that the threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court. I – XIII. Gallegos.65 In Navia v. No. No. Inc. the State or a political organization. viz: (a) be an arrest. The Court will not waste its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ.M. in connection with the constitutional policy protecting and advancing the people’s right to a balanced and healthful ecology. (c) followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition. II. the Court held that the “documented practice of targeting activists in the military’s counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. or threatened with violation by anJunlawful URISTSactRorEVIEW CENTER omission of a public official or employee. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to enforced disappearances should be construed to mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of R. the Court also spelled out the elements of enforced or involuntary disappearances. Napico Homeowners Ass’n.M. people’s organization. 29 April 2010]). (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. (d) the doctrine of command responsibility doctrine may likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo. 07-9-12-SC in relation to R.”66 In Balao v. in probing enforced disappearance cases. liberty and security. involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life. or private individual or entity. not only on the constitutional rights to life. on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated.A. 9851. (e) the writ is immediately executory and need not to await a motion for execution. No.A760 Library SCRA 363Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 66 (2015). Such claim to dwelling does not constitute right to life. or with the authorization. 9851. 673 SCRA 618 (2012). Updates and Teasers Page 82 of 99 any evidence otherwise inadmissible under usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. entity authorized by law. or unlawfully excludes another from the use or 65 Canlas v.” And. and. No. (f) the retirement. The Writ of Kalikasan is a “remedy available to a natural or juridical person. 9851). Updates and Teasers Page 83 of 99 enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain. 568 SCRA 1 (2008) “While victims of enforced disappearances are separated from the rest of the world behind secret walls. not precautionary measures. Injunction and TRO to stop the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces. the Court said: “The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. Therefore. from doing them harm.S. or that the causal link between an action and environmental damage can be established. Reyes. Even as they were already not deprived of their liberty. therefore. and unquantifiable but possibly catastrophic risks such as those associated with Genetically Modified Organisms and climate change.” 1. rules or regulations. Nos. or if the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In situations where the threat is relatively certain. to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. may be taken. in Mosqueda v. under the law. (3) R B G 68 An earlier petition for writ of habeas corpus had been withdrawn following the escape of the the Manalo brothers who were until then illegally detained following their abduction by soldiers and members of the CAFGU. attaching thereto supporting evidence. Secretary of National Defense v.” Nevertheless. And. uncertain. It enables courts REVIEW to enforce CENTERby protecting individual rights in the constitution particular cases. Inc. Manalo. . – SCRA – (G.” In Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. The oft-cited Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992 Rio Agenda). ‘Amparo’ literally means ‘protection’ in Spanish. as a steward of nature.. eliminated the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing – the Rules permit any Filipino citizen.68 As to the Writ’s origin and nature.” Through time. they filed a petition for Prohibition. they still feared for their lives and security. but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation. however. An the they asked Arsenal Of Arms Court to convert their petition to one for Writ of Amparo – and the Court forthwith acceded. The constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection. it has also begun to assume different forms for different purposes – (1) amparo libertadBfor Rprotection ARthe EVIEW 2017 of personal freedom. The person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. threat of environmental damage and serious or irreversible harm.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. The Principle has “emerged from a need to protect humans and the environment from increasingly unpredictable. “[i]t is notable. among others. Neither will the precautionary principle apply if there is no indication of a threat of environmental harm. equivalent to the habeas corpus writ. alleging the facts with certainty. . the Court pointed out that provision in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases which allow for citizen suits. and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent.” Amparo “combines the principles of judicial review derived from the U. first embodied this principle. namely: uncertainty. 756 SCRA 513 (2015). the Court noted that the so-called Precautionary Principle applied in environmental cases requires scientific basis. or the probability of occurrence can be calculated. (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes. they are not separated from the constitutional protection of their basic rights. The moment the rules on the writ A Library Of Liberties of amparo became vis-à-vis effective. . only preventive. specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law. and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which JURISTS prevails in Mexico. Pilipino Banana Growers & Export Association. 16 August 2016) . rule or regulation. that the precautionary principle shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three elements.R. 189185 and 189305. adoption and adaptations in some other places. as well as persons under them.” Thus the Court began its decision in the first very petition filed for a Writ of Amparo. . reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed.S. (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions. And. without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. Thus.. the Court clarified the nature of an amparo production order. and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants’ rights derived from the agrarian reform process. . The Clause is an offspring of the U. §§1 and 2). On the Grave Abuse Clause. in its present form. detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government. liberty and security under the Due Process Clause and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. The Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances. these remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. we had the constitutional guarantee of right to life. II. this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions – borne out of the Latin American and Philippine experience of human rights abuses – offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner. Updates and Teasers Page 84 of 99 amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision. “The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III. “While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clause through remedies of injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpus under Rule 102. Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. amparo casacion. common law tradition of judicial review. ¶2). enforceable by means of the writ of habeas corpus (Art. However. On the other hand. is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for a writ of amparo through summary proceedings and the availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs under the Amparo Rule. What reliefs are available? One would be the production by the responsible officials and persons of all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case. records and charts. amparo writ serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearnces.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. VIII. enforced disappearances are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest. and amparo administrativo. i.” But the means then available were obviously inadequate remedy to pressing problems of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances which cried out for better solutions. §15) as well as the Grave Abuse Clause69 (Art. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.” Its coverage.” In fine.e. And what do you mean by those terms? Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law. before the adoption of the Amparo Rules. the Court said: “The Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes. all BAR REVIEW 2017 medical reports. which finds its roots in the 1803 case of Marbury v. if any. to include a list of medical and (sic) personnel (military and civilian) who attended R B G to the brothers while in detention. the writ of amparo. In the Philippines. or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence. the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which JURISTS places such persons outside the protection of R EVIEW CENTER law. in this regard. or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. Madison. This Constitutional A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 69 This might be the first time that the Court made use of this term. §1. III. as well as the considerations and measures necessary to address these situations. Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” In keeping with A theLibrary idea thatOf theLiberties remedy under the WritAn vis-à-vis Amparo isOf of Arsenal a work Armsin progress. it determines responsibility. Razon. “The disclosure of the present places of assignment of [two military men] whom respondents both directly implicated as perpetrators behind their abduction and detention.” In regard to the need for some adjustments. and we are all witnesses to the same.” And by way of final note. rather. the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court is unique. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored.” (Now.e. Instead. In other words. We highlight this nature of a Writ of Amparo case at the outset to stress that the unique situations that call for the issuance of the writ. 606 SCRA 598 (2009) and 612 SCRA 685 (2010) The remedy under the Writ of Amparo is a work in progress. is to consider all the pieces of evidence B AR REVIEW adduced 2017and to consider any evidence otherwise in their totality. Such disclosure would also help ensure that these military officers can be served with notices and court processes in relation to any investigation and action for violation of the respondents’ rights. The Amparo Rule should be read.” Another relief is the disclosure of the present places of official assignments of identified military personnel who might have had something to do with the abduction. In this sense. to the relevance R B G of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. we must observe flexibility in considering the evidence we shall take into account. specially with respect to matters of evidence. the Court declared: “The writ of amparo is a tool that gives voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls. detention and torture of the amparo petitioners. The fair and proper rule. CENTER the standard of evidence must be responsive to the evidentiary difficulties faced. as for you. The Court said that the Writ of Amparo “does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance. the Bar examinee. Macapagal-Arroyo. the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance. 621 SCRA 481 (2010) – even as some of the . the amparo production order may be likened to the production of documents or things under Section 1. for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. the Court explained that flexibility is necessary under the unique circumstances that enforced disappearance cases JURISTS pose to the courts. Tagitis. may not at all be the same as the standard measures and procedures in ordinary court actions and proceedings. as a work in progress. or at least accountability.” The Court further explained that “[i]n all these cases. Thus. as its directions and finer points remain to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the substantive laws that Congress may promulgate. not a protection of the government from the demand of the people such as respondents. it is time to give voice to your silent pens and to break free from the prison walls you have made out of your unfounded trepidations about the Bar exams!) 2. In this case the Court further expounded on the nature and importance of the Writ of Amparo. to our mind. Updates and Teasers Page 85 of 99 provision is a protection of the people from the unreasonable intrusion of the government.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. v. take note of what the Court said in Burgos v. we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason – i. “Thus. too.. even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. Jr. is relevant in ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding their areas of territorial jurisdiction. To have an effective REVIEW remedy. while we must follow the substantial evidence rule. as present respondents. the parents of the two missing persons could not file a petition on behalf of the third missing individual. specially if there is no showing that there were no known members of the immediate family or relatives of the latter. the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life. Cadapan. “The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo BAR proceeding if the Rules strengthen. There is thus no compelling reason for the Court. Command Responsibility in Amparo Proceedings. As it is. is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires.” The Court also referred the case to the Commission on Human Rights as “the Court’s directly commissioned agency tasked A Library Of Liberties with the continuation vis-à-vis of the investigation of theAn Arsenal Burgos abduction Of Arms and the gathering of evidence. in this regard the Court noted that. In such application. 649 SCRA 618 (2011) Among the significant aspects of this case which arose from the abduction and disappearance of two women and a man is the recognition of the credibility of the testimony of Manalo in the earlier case of Secretary of National Defense. Also. EVIEWthe 2017 procedural efficacy of the writ. “shall continue to be personally impleaded for purposes of the responsibilities and accountabilities they may have incurred during their incumbencies. to disturb its appreciation in Manalo’s testimony. in the same case. as well as Manalo’s graphic description of the detention area. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which. of course.”70 3. the proceedings should not be delayedJand URISTS REVIEW execution CENTER of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay. the Court spoke of a hierarchy of parties when it comes to petitions for writs of amparo. rather thanRweaken.” . with the obligation to report its factual findings and recommendations to this Court. “The order of priority is not without reason – ‘to prevent the indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life. The outright denial of petitioners Lt. The exclusive and successive order mandated by Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo must be followed. thus crumbles. “[T]here is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. liberty or security of the 70 R B G In Burgos. “The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in the just cited Secretary of National Defense v.” Hierarchy of Amparo Petitioners.” Moreover. any person may apply for the writ on behalf of the aggrieved party. Updates and Teasers Page 86 of 99 named respondents had retired or been reassigned elsewhere. Manalo which assessed the account of Manalo to be a candid and forthright narrative of his and his brother Reynaldo’s abduction by the military in 2006. liberty and security of a person is at stake. While the Court maintained the pronouncement in Rubrico in denying the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability. in the present case. even for a day. of Manalo’s brother Reynaldo and a forensic specialist. it nevertheless went on to state that “command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. the Court concluded that “the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of Jonas Burgos. Boac v.’” Thus.” Motion for Execution of Writ of Amparo. liberty or security of the aggrieved party.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Since the right to life. in contrast. in a habeas corpus proceeding. et al. Incidentally. Col. Boac. and of the corroborative testimonies. they. may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. Finally. are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom. as commander-in-chief of the military. R B G Command responsibility of the President. We find this in the dispositive portion: “Respondents Lt. This development in the use of command responsibility in civil proceedings shows that the application of this doctrine has been liberally extended even to cases not criminal in nature. even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure. courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.” 4. especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. they can only be granted before a final adjudication of the case is made. Rogelio Boac. In fine. Summary proceedings. Macapagal-Arroyo. Gen. necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Lt. the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions. Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity. Since there is no determination of administrative. Col. 660 SCRA 84 (2011) The Court discussed some noteworthy highlights regarding the writs of amparo and habeas data in this case. it bears emphasis. The doctrine JURISTS REVIEW of command CENTER responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of the petitioner in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights.” Effect of Transfer. In any case. A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit. Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. Retirement or Separation from Service. Nothing precludes the Court from BAR REVIEW applying the doctrine of command responsibility 2017 in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Francis Mirabelle Samson. Being interim reliefs. Grant of Interim Reliefs. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility. Felipe Anotado. the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil cases for human rights abuses. The order restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is subsumed under the privilege of the writ. Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas shall remain personally impleaded in the petitions to answer for any responsibilities and/or accountabilities they may have incurred during their incumbencies. Concepts of Responsibility and Accountability. Lt. can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. there was no more need to issue a temporary protection order independently of the former. Updates and Teasers Page 87 of 99 aggrieved party. Col. Accordingly. Command Responsibility in Amparo proceedings. The Court held that command responsibility may likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo. Jovito Palparan. since the Court granted petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo. it is also noteworthy that some respondents remained to be such notwithstanding that they might have been reassigned or transferred or retired. civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings. once granted. it must be underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo. Presidential Immunity from Suit. the following elements must obtain: (a) the A Library Of Liberties existence of a superior-subordinate relationshipvis-à-vis Anaccused between the Arsenal Of Arms as superior and the perpetrator of . Courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity. Rodriguez v. The president. but have failed to discharge. being constitutionally mandated to protect human rights and investigate violations thereof. Commission on Human Rights Shortcomings. and (c) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof. The actuations of respondent CHR personnel unmistakably showed their insufficient competence in facilitating and ensuring the safe release of Rodriguez after his ordeal.e. (b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. control and discipline the military. The Court noted that in this case. actual knowledge. Effect of Failure to Conduct a Fair and Effect Investigation. courts consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality. the president has the power to effectively command. 568 SCRA 1. Failure to conduct a fair and effect JURISTS investigation amounts to a violation of or threatRto EVIEW CENTER a person’s rights to life. (b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed. Manalo. . 226. by action or omission. being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. the Court reminded everyone A Library that the right Of Liberties to security vis-à-vis AnofArsenal a person includes Of Arms the positive obligation of the government to ensure the observance of the duty to investigate. Adverting to Secretary of National Defense v. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the violation of or threat to the right to life. otherwise known as the Institutionalization of the Doctrine of ‘Command Responsibility’ in all Government Offices. or (c) members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved. and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under the usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. or threatened with violation. 226 [1995]). As to the issue of failure to prevent or punish. Knowledge of the commission of irregularities. Rodriguez’s right to life. This view is buttressed by the enactment of Executive Order No. reiterating that in the context of amparo proceedings. The Court reduced the rules to the most basic test of reason – i. it nonetheless emphasized its criticism as regards their capacity to recognize torture or any similar form of abuse. liberty and security.. Doctrine of Totality of Evidence. On the issue of knowledge. The president. it must be pointed out that although international tribunals apply a strict standard of knowledge. In the Philippines. Here. liberty and security. should ensure that its officers are well-equipped to respond effectively to and address human rights violations. such may nonetheless be established through circumstantial evidence. Under the doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases. 42 (2008). it is important to note that as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. particularly at all Levels of Command in the Philippine National Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies (E.e. while the Court found that there was no substantial evince to show that the personnel of the CHR who looked into the case of Rodriguez violated. Updates and Teasers Page 88 of 99 the crime as his subordinate. The Court pointed out that the CHR. crimes or offenses is presumed when (a) the acts are widespread within the government official’s area of jurisdiction.O. liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omission of a public official. Thus.. or those who carry. a more liberal view is adopted and superiors may be charged with constructive knowledge. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. while accountability may attach to respondents who are imputed R B G with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. responsibilityBmay REVIEW AR refer 2017 to the participation of the respondents. i. necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine. in enforced disappearance. support or acquiescence of. v.M. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws. and he was subsequently reported by his wife as missing. No. Updates and Teasers Page 89 of 99 there was only perfunctory investigation by the superiors. and after some questioning by the guards. one was allowed to leave while the other (Pardico) was left behind.M. another significant development affecting A. The petitioner must be able to prove by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation. “While Section 1 provides A. said Rules does not. . which the trial court eventually granted. or with the authorization. Section 3(g) thereof defines enforced or involuntary disappearances as follows: (g) ‘Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons’ means the arrest.” Given the foregoing definition.” R B G After setting forth the elements of enforced disappearances. Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity (R. exerting no efforts to take Ramirez’s account of the events into consideration.M. support or acquiescence of the government or a political organization. the Court clarified. a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of J URISTS freedom or R toEVIEW CENTER give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons. 9851. courts should read A. 9851). followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons. with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. . allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough – it must also be shown by the required quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by. 5. Jr. the Court had to resolve the issue as to whether the disappearance of Pardico as alleged by the wife and proved during the summary proceedings before the trial court fell within the ambit of A. No. 07-9-12-SC came about after Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 673 SCRA 618 (2012) In this case. Rather.M. Here. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance’s definition of enforced disappearances. Tagitis when this Court defined enforced disappearances. 07-9-12-SC chose to allow it to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by Congress. detention. This omission was intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which drafted A. Of Liberties It must also vis-à-vis be shown and An proved by Arsenalevidence substantial Of Armsthat the disappearance . Navia v. No. these respondents solely relied on the reports and narration of the military. A. . however.A. and came up with the following important points to consider in an amparo proceeding. No. allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are A Library missing are not enough. specifically in regard to enforced disappearances. Not long thereafter. Meaning. went to the security office. in probing enforced disappearance cases. or with the authorization. she finally filed a petition for Writ of Amparo. On appeal. Pardico. The two. guards of a subdivision invited two persons in relation to a complaint against them for theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision. the budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon.M. Then.M. After the wife could not locate him. No. or abduction of persons by.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. 9851. that for the protective writ of amparo to issue in enforced disappearance cases. No. 9851 on December 11. accompanied by the mother of one of them. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to BAR Rto enforced disappearances should be construed EVIEW 2017 mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of RA No. 2009. No. The Court said no. in conjunction with the provisions of the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law. define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. the Court concluded that “it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue. 07-9-12-SC’s coverage. the Court held further: “Therefore. M. the Court clarified the the difference between writ of amparo and the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. The Court reiterated: “As discussed above. a private entity – they did not work for the government and nothing had been presented that would link or connect them to some covert police. 693 SCRA 192 (2013) To be entitled to the privilege of the writ of amparo. 07-9-12-SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity? Yes. The court compels the respondents to appear before a court of law to show whether . Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as “granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person. the violation of or the threat to the BAR Rwhich petitioner’s life. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise out of very real and concrete R B G circumstances. “The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. 07-9-12-SC.M. De Lima v. proof of disappearance alone is not enough.” Here.” But is it not that under Section 1 of A.” In this particular case. The Court reminded everyone that “the privilege of the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons. to fall within the ambit of A. the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously. the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate. A judgment EVIEW 2017 simply grants ‘the privilege of the writ’ cannot be executed. military or governmental operation.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. liberty and security are being violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission.” The Court explained that “theOf A Library issuance of thevis-à-vis Liberties writ itself sets An in motion presumptive Arsenal Of Arms judicial protection for the petitioner. Gatdula. Pador v. the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing. Updates and Teasers Page 90 of 99 was carried out by. or with the authorization. support or acquiescence of.’” 7. support or acquiescence of the government. No. the State or a political organization. The writ does not envisage the protection of concerns that are purely property or commercial in nature. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. the Rule on the Writ of JURISTS REVIEW Amparo. still. No. the disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement. This indispensable element of State participation is not present in this case. the respondents were mere security guards at a private subdivision. while the Court basically believed the version of the petitioner seeking the writ. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. Arcayan.” 6. 691 SCRA 226 (2013) In this case. it nevertheless that “in an amparo petition. It is likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization. with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. No. “[b]ut even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. if not totally eradicate. liberty or security. the petitioner must prove by substantial evidence that his or her rights to life. lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. ‘Accordingly. government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element. 9851. After CENTER examining the petition and its attached affidavits. for all intents and purposes. Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. The mother’s directly accusing the Department of Social Welfare and Development officers of forcibly separating herJfrom URISTS REVIEW her child CENTER and placing the latter up for adoption. 8. The requirement to file an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to life. If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence. If the Return is not filed. After the hearing. the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.” Among the other significant points to consider: • “It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of constitutional rights. Until the full satisfaction of the judgment. Parenthetically. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status. clearly indicated that she was not searching for a lost child but asserting her parental authority over the child and BAR REVIEW 2017 contesting custody over him. Updates and Teasers Page 91 of 99 the grounds for more permanent protection and interim reliefs are necessary.” • A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. “[t]here will be a summary hearing only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. Since what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child. The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the writ through the clerk of court. it should be done prior to the hearing. who. has been legally considered a ward of the R B G State. Sequi. It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.” • “The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. The judgment should contain measures which the judge views as essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo case. hence. the court will render the judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. the judgment will be satisfied.” • “A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms . the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. supposedly without complying with the necessary legal requisites to qualify the child for adoption. not after.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the hearing will be done ex parte. the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. this is when the threats to the petitioner’s life. In Amparo cases. It is not a civil nor a criminal action.” Thereafter. liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated. the Return has other purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case. The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition. Hence. After the measures have served their purpose. Unlike an Answer. the case may also be terminated through consolidation should a subsequent case be filed – either criminal or civil. 732 SCRA 86 (2014) A petition for a writ of amparo is not the proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child. a right or particular fact. These measures must be detailed enough so that the judge may be able to verify and monitor the actions taken by the respondents. liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. Caram v. he is still disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud of anxiety. His financial resources may be drained. because the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. or even without cause or justifiable motive.’” R B G A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms . a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. This looming unrest as well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual. Sandiganbayan (First Division). suspicion and BAR REVIEW 2017 often. There is also prejudice if the defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately JURISTS REVIEW CENTER the events of the distant past. its ‘salutary objective’ is to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation or. as well as all proceedings. the Court in Corpuz v. the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay. however. his association is curtailed. any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. and to limit the possibility that his defense will be impaired. hostility. 312. the right to speedy disposition of cases is not merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of justice but also to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time. It must be noted. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES The Court came up with enlightening reminders on the guaranty of speedy disposition of cases in Coscolluela v.] illumined: ‘A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. either judicial or quasi-judicial. Even if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial. Updates and Teasers Page 92 of 99 R. and he is subjected to public obloquy. and oppressive delays. (2) the reasons for the delay. In the context of the right to a speedy trial. and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. Sandiganbayan (Corpuz)[. to minimize anxiety and concerns of the accused to trial. namely: to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration. (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. that the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient. 701 SCRA 188 (2013).R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. This involved a criminal prosecution which almost took eight (8) years from the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman to the time that the case was filed with the Sandiganbayan. 442 SCRA 294. of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. Hence. the Court lectured about the right to speedy disposition. Akin to the right to speedy trial. For the fundamentals. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. 313-314 (2004). Of these. Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious.” As for the rationale. the most serious is the last. ¶ ‘x x x Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect. the Court elucidated: “Lest it be misunderstood. if otherwise. be it civil or administrative in nature. in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case. “This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases. capricious. In this accord. Sandiganbayan. 476 SCRA 202 (2005).S. a mere witness. the Government was held to its part of the bargain relative to grant of transactional immunity. not by seizing upon the exercise of the right.” Then. the accused. Sandiganbayan.” BAR REVIEW 2017 1. The Court said: “Surely. the Court said that it “should not allow respondent Republic. Kapunan. 670 U. to double cross petitioner Disini. the Court held that the kind of immunity that may be granted in the Philippines is broader than American “transactional immunity” since the latter are judge-made while in the Philippines they are granted by the legislature. to put it bluntly. or a party in a civil suit. Salinas v. a witness may only refuse to answer incriminating questions. Updates and Teasers Page 93 of 99 S. the government should be fair. the principle of fair play.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. urine samples. 12–246. In Disini v. however. without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warnings. If the authorities want to pin him down. If he is the respondent in proceedings in which loss or forfeiture of property71 or loss of a license or profession72 is a consequence. it must be remembered that the guarantee is against compelled testimonial evidence. In Tanchanco v. . But then he balked when the Cabal v. to the so-called immunity statutes – the “use or derivative use” or the “transactional” immunity statutes. Further. v. 621 SCRA 415 (2010). immunity was granted to Jesus Disini in exchange for his agreement to testify for the Government in relation to the dispute with Westinghouse regarding the Bataan Nuclear Plant. . DNA samples and the like.” The guarantee given to Jesus against being compelled to testify in cases against Herminio constitutes a grant of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. otherwise it would be useless. he was also given the right not to testify against Herminio T. then he may also invoke the privilege like an accused. not object evidence which may include fingerprints. In that grant. SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE Under this privilege. blood samples. The courts have upheld the validity of such statutes provided they accord the person compelled to testify a degree of protection coextensive with what is otherwise guaranteed by the constitutional proscription against self-incrimination. 231 SCRA 783 (1994). While an accused can refuse altogether to take the witness stand. More than any one. Disini. of immunity to petitioner Disini against being compelled to testify is ultimately a grant of immunity from being criminally prosecuted by the State for refusal to testify. while in Mapa v. should hold the Republic on to its promise. 28 SCRA 344 (1969) . Board of Medical Examiners. Library Of (1962) Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 71 6 SCRA 1059 72 Pascual. Texas. as if to provide JURISTS REVIEW CENTER lessons on human relations. they have to come up with their own proof independent of what might be concealed by the person himself. voluntarily R B G answered the questions of a police officer who was investigating a murder. which is the essence of due process. “The grant. therefore. 17 June 2013) Here.AJr. a person is free to keep within his breast any incriminatory matters and he could not be forced to disclose them. Subsequently the Government said that Jesus Disini could not refuse to testify against Herminio. while the language of the privilege suggests an absolute right not to be compelled to provide an incriminating answer. When it comes to availing of the privilege. The prosecution is still required to prove guilt by its own evidence. something that falls within the express coverage of the immunity given him.. . ___ (No. No inference of guilt should be made from the invocation of the privilege. Nevertheless. Sandiganbayan. the same is subject. Jr. distinctions have to be made as to whether the person invoking it is an accused. must claim it’” at the time he relies on it. to deny. courts should generally defer to the judgment of the prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he can be used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements of Section 17. To BAR secure his testimony without exposing him REVIEW to the 2017 the law recognizes that the witness risk of prosecution. In these ways. . Rule 119. . A witness does not expressly invoke the privilege by standing mute. we have long held that a witness who “‘desires the protection of the privilege . . and at trial prosecutors argued that his reaction to the officer’s question suggested that he was guilty. Consequently.”’” In this case. . or cure any potential self-incrimination through a grant of immunity. The latter do not as a rule have a vision of the true strength of the prosecution’s evidence until after the trial is over. It gives the Ombudsman wide latitude in usingJan accusedRdischarged URISTS EVIEW C ENTER from the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other accused and attain a higher prosecutorial goal.” What benefit would it be to grant immunity to one who is a co-conspirator? “One rule of wisdom is R B G that where a crime is contrived in secret. . Congress has vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as in the Secretary of Justice. . however. .” The Court explained that the authority of the Ombudsman to enter into grant immunity enables him “to carry out his constitutional mandate to ensure accountability in the public service.’ . Immunity statutes seek to provide a balance between the state’s interests and the individual’s right against self-incrimination.’” Nevertheless. . “Indeed. Sandibanbayan (Fourth Division). Supreme Court said no. the Court noted: “Our cases establish that a defendant normally does not invoke the privilege by remaining silent.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. The express invocation requirement also gives courts tasked with evaluating a Fifth Amendment claim a contemporaneous record establishing the witness’ reasons for refusing to answer. the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential so he can testify against the others. insisting that witnesses expressly invoke the privilege ‘assures that the Government obtains all the information to which it is entitled.S. In such a case. both interests and rights are satisfied. or to refuse to answer.” Finally. the Court held: “[A] witness need not expressly invoke the privilege where some form of official compulsion denies him ‘a “free choice to admit.” 2. Who else outside the conspiracy can testify about the goings-on that took place among the accused involved in the conspiracy to defraud the government in this case? No one can A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms underestimate Mercado’s testimony since he alone can provide a detailed picture of the fraudulent scheme . Is this violative of the right against self-incrimination? The U. “[t]hat requirement ensures that the Government is put on notice when a witness intends to rely on the privilege so that it may either argue that the testimony sought could not be self-incriminating. Updates and Teasers Page 94 of 99 officer asked whether a ballistics test would show that the shell casings found at the crime scene would match petitioner’s shotgun. . can be given immunity from prosecution. . . . . “The privilege against self-incrimination ‘is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony. after noting some exceptions. the decision to employ an accused as a state witness must necessarily originate from the public prosecutors whose mission is to obtain a successful prosecution of the several accused before the courts. 699 SCRA 713 (2013) “The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function. the accused “cannot benefit from that principle because it is undisputed that his interview with police was voluntary. . He was subsequently charged with murder.” the Court declared in this involving a denial of the Ombudsman’s motion to discharge an accused pursuant to an immunity agreement. . Besides.” Further. . People v. To prevent the privilege from shielding information not properly within its scope. the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation. He still retains some. Penalties could not be grossly disproportionate to the infraction of society’s rules. the same may amount to a violation of the right against self-incrimination. we cannot condone drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime of offense for which the arrest is being made. which punishments had been pegged to amounts determined way back in the 1930s. 730 SCRA 655 (2014) Where there is coerced drug testing following an arrest relative to a complaint not related to drugs. but all of his efforts proved futile. the Court refused to make adjustments in the penalty for imprisonment for estafa. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test.” T. just because a person may have been sent to prison does it mean that he is completely cut off from the world. People. however. including adequate medical care.73 Nevertheless. the State saw a higher social value in eliciting information from him rather than in engaging in his prosecution. the U. Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal. ___ (2011). stripped of all constitutional rights. 563 U. EXCESSIVE FINES.” In this particular case. that the pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest.” But is this not rewarding the criminal? Well. Plata. The Court said: “We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such proscription.S. Court (2007) 74 Corpuz v. In other2017 words. 724 SCRA 1 (2014) .” The Court then concluded that “[i]n the face of these constitutional guarantees [against unreasonable searches and seizures and right against self-incrimination]. The constitutional guarantee on punishments is geared towards seeing to it that whatever penalty is imposed does not become such that it violates the very notion of a civilized society where the mandates of substantive due process reigns.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS Punishment is supposed to be the price that has to be paid by those found guilty of crimes against the State – a way of making amends for violation of society’s rules. Likewise. because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances. though to the extent only JURISTS that would be consistent with his status REVIEW CENTER as prisoner. People. the immunity granted does not blot out the fact that such co-conspirator committed the offense. R B G A Library Inc. In the case of Brown v. Dela Cruz v.” 3. Mercado’s testimony can fill in the gaps in the evidence.74 Fines should not be excessive. Updates and Teasers Page 95 of 99 that went into the approval and issuance of the tax credit certificates. Supreme Court held that overcrowding in prisons resulting in deficiencies in the medical care of the prisoners violate the Eighth Amendment BAR REVIEW guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments.Of Liberties of Appeals. vis-à-vis 541 SCRA 22An Arsenal Of Arms 73 See De La Salle University. The documents can show the irregularities but not the detailed events that led to their issuance. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution. and other forms of punishments should not be cruel or inhuman as determined by present day standards. if a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance. It is the manner by which society may somehow exact a form of retribution. v.S. He was adamant in exercising his rights. “While he is liable. “[i]t is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. However. People. v.. See also Heirs of Jane Honrales v. If it were A Library otherwise allowed. Thus. he stands the risk of having the penalty rectified – and increased!81 And. 629 SCRA 423 (2010). The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.82 1.” the Sandiganbayan cannot proceed to dismiss the case based on insufficiency of evidence. Atienza. Sandiganbayan. 144 SCRA 43 (1986) 78 People v. and. Jr. People. too. Nevertheless. Rondero. In this regard. 559 SCRA 449 (2008) 80 People v. Honrales. Ramiscal. Inc. Abaya. Jr. the employer. Laguio. 279 SCRA 180 (1997) [illegal recruitment]. For the writ to issue.” 75 E. cannot appeal on behalf of an employee who has jumped bail. such employer’s appealOf Liberties would violate the vis-à-vis Anagainst employee’s right Arsenal Of Arms double jeopardy since the judgment against the latter could become subject to modification without his consent. Nierras v. Sandiganbayan. 650 SCRA 222 (2011). the Court added: “Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal. the case ends there. in accordance with the rule that only the accused may appeal.q. jeopardy would not attach. 518 SCRA 393 (2007). and. thus. it may be that a single act could give rise to two or more offenses. Cerezo v. it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. if the act gives rise to violation of a national law and a local ordinance. DOUBLE JEOPARDY The guarantee against double jeopardy is another assurance of fairness – that a person be not exposed more than once to the danger of being punished for the commission of the same offense. by itself alone. the employer cannot. 181 SCRA 1 (1990) [bouncing checks]. the trial court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. . 427 SCRA 456 (2004). the Court held that. 580 SCRA 409 (2009) R B G 81 People v. As a consequence. People v. final and unappealable otherwise it would place the accused in double jeopardy – the verdict being one of acquittal. 498 SCRA 445 (2006). People v. undertake to appeal the civil aspect of the judgment.80 The prosecution may not also appeal to increase the penalty.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. thus. Dumlao. appeal that aspect relating to its subsidiary civil liability. it must be remembered that the guarantee is in relation to the same offense. Where the latter jumps bail. 79 BAR REVIEW 2017 People v. Updates and Teasers Page 96 of 99 U. 3019 and Revised Penal Code] 76 77 JURISTS REVIEW CENTER See separate opinion of Justice Tinga in Gonzales v. though if the accused himself does appeal. appeal opening up the whole case for review. 673 SCRA 470 (2012) Here the Court reiterated the general rule that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is. 320 SCRA 383 (1999) 82 In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines.A.76 The rule is also that an acquittal puts an end to the criminal case and the prosecution could not elevate it to a higher tribunal except in case of a mistrial77 or when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which then renders the resulting judgment void. where a Motion to Dismiss/Quash is based on the ground that the “facts charged do not constitute an offense. the former cannot. Dacuycuy. 499 SCRA 375 (2006) [R.79 Further. and. rendering the assailed judgment void. conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar to prosecution for the same act. It has also been noted that double jeopardy attaches if one is tried by both a military court and a civilian court over the same act. a violation of the basic rules of statutory construction which amounts to grave abuse of discretion would render any judgment of acquittal useless.75 prosecution for which will not give rise to a violation of the constitutional proscription. Galman v. Sandiganbayan. v. independently of the convicted employee..78 Thus. Ortiz-Miyake. One may wonder. What if the accused pleads guilty to the lesser charge involving physical injuries. Would it not be a case of a law “which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed”? Valeroso v. There is no violation where overall the resulting penalty is still more beneficial to the accused. “[a]s the text of the Clause makes clear. “[d]eprivation of the right to fair warning. 635 SCRA 191 (2010) If irresponsible driving leads to a vehicular collision resulting in damage to property. injuries to a passenger and death to another passenger. 451 (2001) . With regard to the rule againstJexURISTS post factoRlaws. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are retroactive in their application. . Updates and Teasers Page 97 of 99 2. Due process requires at the very least that before a person could be held to account for what alleged wrong he committed. 312 SCRA 703 (1999). how such reasoning could provide a satisfactory answer to the question as to why the imposition of the new penalty (fine) is not a violation of the proscription against ex post facto laws. only one even as there would be two resulting charges – one for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. Court of Appeals. as well as in Cadua v. reckless imprudence is a single crime. how many offenses are committed? Technically. Court of Appeals. and its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine the penalty. and. Thus. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER The constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder ensures fundamental fairness. in the case of bills of attainder. . provided a better answer. another one for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property. could he plead this as a way to preclude the second charge involving homicide? The Court said yes because double jeopardy would have set in – there is actually only one offense of reckless imprudence! In other words. can result both from vague statutory language and from an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of statutory language that appears narrow and precise on its face. 546 SCRA 450 (2008). there is also a violation of the principle of separation of powers – Congress legislates but it is the judiciary that adjudicates. Modesto-San Pedro. Worse. Tennessee. They impose a penalty or disability after the act has been committed when no such disadvantageous effect was yet present when the act was done. Where an amendatory law imposes a new penalty. EVIEWit hasCalso ENTER been observed that. . could that penalty be imposed on someone who committed the offense before the amendment. and does not of its own force apply to the Judicial Branch of government. and whose case was then on appeal at the time of effectivity of the amendatory law? In Gonzales v. the Court said the new penalty may be imposed since an appeal throws the entire case open for review. he was forewarned of the consequences of his act. 532 U.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. the sanction is imposed without judicial proceedings. 277 SCRA 518 (1997). V. No man should be punished for acts which when done were perfectly lawful.S. however. People. it ‘is a limitation upon the powers of the Legislature.” Indeed. such as when the total period imprisonment is reduced. “limitations on ex post facto judicial decisionmaking are inherent in the notionBAR of R EVIEW due 2017 process. Ivler v. such as a fine.”83 R B G A Library Of Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of Arms 83 Rogers v.’” Nevertheless. Marcelo. 3019. the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under R. Moreover. not being favorable to the accused cannot be given retroactive effect. Indeed. and the lack of judicial trial. 497 SCRA 89 (2006).P. What is rather involved here is UCPB’s investment in UNICOM.R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. as originally enacted. the Court reminded us also of the rationale for the rule on prescription: “Prescription of actions is a valued rule in all civilized states from the beginning of organized society. a bill of attainder (or bill of pains and J R C 84 Take note of the difference between the URISTS EVIEW discovery of possible ENTER criminal acts in behest loans in earlier cases and in the investment involved in the instant case: “In the prosecution of cases of behest loans. what is questioned here is not the grant of behest loans that. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years. Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa (B.”84 2. a bill of attainder is essentially a usurpation of judicial power by a legislative body. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals. the prescriptive period for such acts is 10 years as provided in Section 11 of R. no person would have dared question the legality or propriety of the loans. While cast in the form of special legislation. That investment does not. 661 SCRA 589 (2011) Here. 157 SCRA 613 (1988).) Blg. Pacificador. Both parties to such loans supposedly conspired to perpetrate fraud ARagainstEVIEW the government. The Court said no. though “[i]n more modern terms. prior to that date. Cojuangco applied and reiterated the foregoing principle. the argument was advanced that the Attrition Law (R. Teves. by their nature. the plaintiff can postpone the filing of his action to the point of depriving the defendant. does it affect those crimes which were committed prior to the amendment of the law? In Romualdez v.A. penal or otherwise. And..” It also gave a brief background on bills of attainder as discussed by Justice Feliciano in his concurring opinion in Tuason v. specifically that bills of attainder are “an ancient instrument of tyranny” whereby Parliament would at times enact bills or statutes which declared certain persons attainted and their blood corrupted so that it lost all heritable quality. They could only have been discovered after the 1986 EDSA Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos from office. Section 11 of R. without it.A. the Court reckoned the prescriptive period from the discovery of such loans. however.A. Register of Deeds. 3019 was only 10 years. of access to defense witnesses who would have died or left to live elsewhere. however. For one thing.” The Court made reference to its earlier pronouncement in People v. Republic v. or to documents that would have been discarded or could no longer be located. Caloocan City. as aggrieved party. the memories of witnesses are eroded by time. And. No. Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) v. the imposition of a punishment. 1982.” . 195 on March 16.P. It explained that “[a] bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. It there observed: “Notably. Cojuangco. R B G “Those circumstances do not obtain in this case. Since the acts complained of were committed before the enactment of B. through the passage of time. but by legislative fiat. appear to have been withheld from the curious or from those who were minded to know like banks A Library or competing businesses. It is a rule of fairness since. could not have known that those loans existed when they were made. which corporation is allegedly owned by respondent Cojuangco. the OSGOfmadeLiberties vis-à-vis no allegation that respondentAn Arsenal members OfofArms of the board directors of UCPB connived with UNICOM to suppress public knowledge of the investment. 9335) is a bill of attainder. 354 SCRA 310 (2001) that the longer prescriptive period of fifteen (15) years would not apply for the reason that the amendment. There is an absolute need in the interest of fairness to bar actions that have taken the plaintiffs too long to file in court. 674 SCRA 492 (2012) If the prescriptive period is extended by law such that it makes it longer. Updates and Teasers Page 98 of 99 1. supposedly a Marcos crony. the Court said no. 195.A. could be concealed from the public eye by the simple expedient of suppressing their documentations. it is not. The reason B R 2017 for this is that the government. Jr. It envisages and effects the imposition of a penalty – the deprivation of life or liberty or property – not by the ordinary processes of judicial trial. R B GOROSPE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes. Others may want you to take the path they may prefer or have gotten accustomed to but then it may be better to take the road less traveled as it might make all the difference in the Bar . liberated from pressures or other extraneous influences. head up high with the self-generated confidence. without any of the civilized forms and safeguards of the judicial process as we know it. refreshing and exhilarating morning when the results of your toils would finally bear fruits that you. without an opportunity to defend.” Go then and become a lawyer. or his characterization of the issue. or by the simple fact that you have become a bona fide member of the legal profession.” (Robert Frost. Updates and Teasers Page 99 of 99 penalties. . For as long as one is alive. for nothing is more satisfying and fulfilling than knowing at the end of the day that you did it – in your own way! Look forward then to a beautiful. the capacity and knack for educating oneself would not terminate by mere lapse of time. You’d find that the learning process does not prescribe.85 Go forth in your quest. One must know how to see things in proper context and in appropriate perspective in order not to be blindly led or misled. then he would have lost half the battle. Arms And that has made all the difference. and in your life. “The Road Not Taken” [1916]) . and I took the one less traveled by. N JURISTS REVIEW CENTER BAR REVIEW 2017 R B G 85 A Library “Two roads diverged OfI –Liberties vis-à-vis An Arsenal Of in a wood. . if it prescribed a penalty other than death) is in intent and effect a penal judgment visited upon an identified person or group of persons (and not upon the general community) without a prior charge or demand. your family and friends would savor and enjoy. If one were to simply follow and abide by his adversary’s definition of the problem. without notice and hearing. motivated by what you want to be and guided by your best lights.