CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014)
DEFINITIONS & EXPLANATIONS
UNIFORM AND EQUITABLE RULE OF TAXATION
Uniformity in taxation means that persons or things belonging to the
same class shall be taxed at the same rate. Equitable taxation
connotes that taxes should be apportioned among the people
according to their capacity to pay.
DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS
When the legislature inserts inappropriate provisions in a general
appropriation bill, such provisions must be treated as "items" for
purposes of the Governor's item veto power over general
appropriation bills.
BILL OF RIGHTS
The article in the Constitution which guarantees liberty as opposed to
authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the State,
and which defines and limits such authority’s reach, lest regulation
become encroachment and the pristine purity of rights is debased by
naked power
It is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person’s life, liberty,
and property which governmental power may not touch
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
“The general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial”
(Dartmouth College Case, Daniel Webster)
SUBSTANTIVE PROCESS OF LAW
It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to his life, liberty or property. The inquiry in this
regard is not whether or not the law is being enforced in accordance
with the prescribed manner but whether or not, to begin with, it is a
proper exercise of legislative power. To be so, the law must have a
valid governmental objective. Furthermore, this objective must be
pursued in a lawful manner.
HABANA NOTES
PROBABLE CAUSE
Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the
warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to
rely on them and act in pursuance thereof
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights”
(Art. 3, Sec. )
“Strong fences make good neighbors”. The idea is to delineate the
boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid
encroachments by one against the other because of a
misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive
jurisdictions. A union of Church and State “tends to destroy
government and to degrade religion”
“The government is neutral, and while protecting all, it prefers none,
and it disparages none”
RELIGIOUS TESTS
The constitutional prohibition against religious tests is aimed against
clandestine attempts on the part of the government to prevent a
person from exercising his civil or political rights because of his
religious beliefs
THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE
The rule is that the danger created must not only be clear and present
but also traceable to the ideas expressed. It is a question of proximity
and degree. The character of every act depends upon the
circumstances in which it is done.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
A legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence
being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of
guilt
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014)
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law” (Art. 3, Sec. 14[1])
Criminal due process requires that the accused be tried by an
impartial and competent court in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law and with proper observance of all the rights
accorded him under the Constitution and the applicable statutes
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s
constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a
court of law. It is submitted that it may nonetheless be used in the
judicial or administrative action that may be filed against the officer
responsible for its illegal seizure.
Sec. 3(2), Art. 3: “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding”
MIRANDA DOCTRINE
“the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that
any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him,
and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained
or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights
provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.
If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the
process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking
there can be no questioning”
(Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436)
RES GESTAE
Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking
place, or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae.
BAIL BOND
The security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
before any court as may be required
HABANA NOTES
(Rule 114, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court)
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT
The accused may be prosecuted for another offense f a subsequent
development changes the character of the first indictment under
which he may have already been charged or convicted
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bat to another prosecution
for the same act”
(Art. 3, Sec. 21)
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
The condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or
imprisonment and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is
paid or not
EX POST FACTO LAW
One that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so
at the time it was committed
DOUBLE TAXATION
There is such when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by
the same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for
the same purpose
DEBT
Any civil obligation arising from contract, express or implied.
POLL TAX
A specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class
without regard to his property or occupation
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
A prerogative writ of liberty employed to test the validity of a
person’s detention
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014) HABANA NOTES

OBJECTIVES & ENUMERATIONS

CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH TO MAKE
SPECIFIC LIMITS ON THE POWER TO TAX THE CLASSIFICATION OF CONGRESS VALID
1. Due Process 1. Based on substantial distinction
2. Equal Protection 2. Germane to the purposes of the law
3. Public Purpose 3. Not limited to existing conditions only
4. Apply equally to all members of the class
DELEGATION OF THE POWER OF TAXATION
1. Local Legislative Bodies CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID SEARCH
2. President WARRANT
1. It must be based upon probable cause
REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN 2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 3. Determination must be made after examination under oath or
1. Impartial and Competent Court affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant 4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
and over the property persons or things to be seized
3. Hearing; Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
CORRESPONDENCE
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 1. Lawful order of the court
1. Substantive 2. Public safety or order
2. Procedural (Sec. 3[1], Art 3)

REQUISITES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 1. Freedom to believe
1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case 2. Freedom to act on one’s belief
and submit evidence
2. Tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law CIRCUMSTANCES OF NON-VIOLATION OF THE
and facts of the controversy ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
3. Tribunal must consider evidence presented 1. Statute has a secular legislative purpose
4. Evidence must be substantial 2. Its principal or primary effect is one that neither advances nor
5. Decision must have something to support itself inhibits religion
6. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented 3. It does not foster an “excessive government entanglement with
7. Board or body should render its decision in such a manner that the religion”
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved
SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ON THE LIBERTY OF ABODE
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND TRAVEL
“free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate A. LIBERTY OF ABODE –Lawful order of the court
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of B. RIGHT TO TRAVEL – National security, public safety or public
poverty” health as may be provided by law
(Sec. 11, Art. 3)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014)
LIMITATIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION AND THE STATE POLICY OF PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE
1. National Security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal Matters
4. Other confidential information
(Chavez vs PCGG, 299 SCRA 744)
Sec. 7, Art 3: “The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and
to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law”
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Sec. 15, Art 3: “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it”
Sec. 18, Art. 7: “In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding 60 days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus…”
RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Sec. 12, Art 3: Right to be informed of his –
1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice
3. If not able, right to counsel to be provided by the State
4. That such right cannot be waived unless with counsel
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Sec. 17, Art 3: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself”
A. HUMANITARIAN: It is intended to prevent the State from
extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him
HABANA NOTES
B. PRACTICAL: A person subjected to such compulsion is likely to
perjure himself for his own protection
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Sec. 14(a), Art. 3: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”
Nevertheless, the constitutional presumption of innocence may be
overcome by contrary presumptions based on the experience of
human conduct. According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption
will not apply as long as there is “some rational connection between
the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of
one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a
purely arbitrary mandate”
THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
1. Opportunity for the accused to weigh the testimony of complainant
2. Opportunity for the judge to observe the demeanor of both parties
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
1. Accused has already been arraigned
2. Accused has been duly notified of the trial
3. His failure to appear is unjustified
REQUISITES FOR A VALID DEFENSE OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
1. A valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court
3. To which the defendant had pleaded
4. Of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or which
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
INSEPARABLE OFFENSES
Where one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from
the same act, they cannot be the subject of separate prosecutions.
However, it is possible for one act to give rise to several crimes, in
which case separate prosecutions for each crime may be filed,
provided the elements of the several crimes are not identical.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014) HABANA NOTES

“[w]hen the subsequent information charges another and different 3. Naval Enlistment
offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts, there is no 4. Posse Comitatus (In pursuit of persons who have violated the law)
prohibited double jeopardy” (People vs Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601) 5. Public Interest
6. Patria Potestas
TERMINATION OF CASES
1. ACQUITTAL – executory upon rendition and entitles the accused
to immediate release
2. CONVICTION – appealable within 15 days but becomes final if
the convict starts serving his sentence even before the expiration of
this period

PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
Sec. 19, Art. 3: “(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already disposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading

punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law”

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

1. Voluntary
2. With assistance of counsel
3. In writing
4. Express

BAR TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1. State witness
2. Amnesty

NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL

1. Accused is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua AND
2. Evidence against him is strong

EXCEPTIONS TO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

1. Punishment for a crime
2. Defense of the State
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014)
JURISPRUDENCE
Stonehill vs Diokno (20 SCRA 383)
The Supreme Court, noting that warrants “were issued upon
applications alleging a violation of Central Bank circularsd, the Tariff
and Customs Law, the Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal
Code”, declared through Chief Justice Conception:
“In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications.
The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract.
As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants
to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought
has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a
given provision of our criminal laws”
Articles illegally seized are not admissible as evidence. While
conceding that the officer making the unlawful search and seizure
may be held criminally and civilly liable, it observed that most
jurisdictions have realized that the exclusionary rule is “the only
practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction” against
abuse
Artificial persons, like corporations, are also entitled to the guaranty.
Placer vs Villanueva (126 SCRA 463)
It puts to rest (let us hope) the indecisions of the Supreme Court on
the question of who should determine probable cause as a
requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
Several informations were filed by the petitioner prosecutors who
had certified that they had conducted the required preliminary
investigations. The judge asked them to submit the supporting
affidavits so he could determine whether or not the corresponding
warrants of arrest should be issued, but the prosecutors refused,
arguing they had the authority under PD911 to determine probable
cause. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the issuance of the
warrant of arrest was not a ministerial function of the judge who has
the right to determine for himself the existence of probable cause.
While he could rely on the findings of the prosecutor, he was
nevertheless not bound thereby. The Court cited Rule 112, Section 6
HABANA NOTES
of the Rules of Court, providing that a judge may issue a warrant of
arrest only if he is satisfied from the investigation conducted by him
or the prosecutor that there is probable cause.
Soliven vs Makasiar (167 SCRA 393)
“Personally determined”
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
of probable cause… the judge is not required to personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses.
[h]e shall (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest, or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause
Valmonte vs De Villa (173 SCRA 211)
The Supreme Court upheld the establishment of checkpoints by the
military where it could conduct searches and make arrests without
warrant.
“The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably
in other areas) may be considered as a security measure to enable the
NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense
and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public… Between the
inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public
welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless search which is
however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.”
Caunca vs Salazar (82 Phil. 851)
The issue was whether or not a maid had the right to transfer to
another residence even if she had not yet paid the amount advanced
by an employment agency, which was then detaining her, for her
transportation from the province.
“The fact that power to control said freedom may be an effective means of avoiding
monetary loss to the agency is no reason for jeopardizing a fundamental human
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014)
right. The fortunes of business cannot be controlled by controlling a fundamental
human freedom”
Supreme Court released on habeas corpus a housemaid who was
being detained and required to render domestic services in payment
for the money advanced for her transportation from the province
Marcos vs Manglapus (177 SCRA 669)
The Supreme Court sustained the refusal of the government to allow
the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national
security. The majority held there was sufficient basis for this
apprehension, as against the minority’s contention that the former
President was, like any other citizen, entitled to come back to his own
country.
Fonacier vs Court of Appeals (96 Phil. 417)
The Supreme Court, applying the pertinent laws and the internal
rules of the Philippine Independent Church, resolved the conflict
between two persons claiming to be the head of the church and thus
vested with control of its properties
New York Times vs United States (403 US 713)
The respondent sought to enjoin the publication by two newspapers
of certain official classified papers relating to American policy on the
Vietnam war. Such publication, it was argued, would be detrimental
to the security of the US. The US Supreme Court, in sustaining the
periodicals, declared:
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy
presumption against its validity. The government thus carries a heavy burden of
showing justification for the enforcement of such a restraint. ”
“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors… Only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount
among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the
government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of
foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell”
Katigbak vs Solicitor General (180 SCRA 540)
“The forfeiture of the property provided for in RA1379 being in the nature of a
penalty; and it being axiomatic that a law is ex post facto which inter alia ‘makes
criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when
HABANA NOTES
done, and punishes such an act’, or, ‘assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes a penalty of deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful’, it follows that that penalty of forfeiture prescribed by RA 1379
cannot be applied to acquisitions made prior to its passage without running afoul of
the Constitutional provision condemning ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. ”
Garner vs Board of Public Works (341 US 717)
An ordinance prohibited the employment by the City of Los Angeles
of any person who during the past 5 years “advised, advocated or
taught the overthrow of the government of the US or of California” or
had been affiliated with any group doing such acts. The Act also
required every incumbent employee to execute an affidavit stating
“whether or not he is or ever was a member of the Communist Party
of the US or of the Communist Political Association, and if he is or
ever was such a member, stating the date when he became, and the
period during which he was, such a member.” Challenged by 17
employees who were discharged for refusal to comply with the
requirement, the ordinance was sustained by the US Supreme Court:
“We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the
State from inquiring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their
fitness and suitability for the public service. Past conduct may well relate to present
fitness; past loyalty may have a reasonable relationship to present and future trust.
Both are commonly inquired into a determining fitness for both high and low
positions in private industry and are not less relevant in public employment. The
affidavit requirement is valid.”
Ilagan vs Enrile (139 SCRA 349)
For lack of evidence, the Supreme Court order the temporary release
on the recognizance of their principal counsel. The detainees were
not released however. On the following day, the respondents filed an
urgent motion/manifestation stating that an information for
rebellion was filed against the detained attorneys before the RTC of
Davao and that a warrant of arrest has been issued against them.
Hence, the petition should be dismissed for having become moot and
academic. The Supreme Court agreed with the military and granted
the motion.
Lansang vs Garcia (42 SCRA 448)
Supreme Court declared that it has the power to inquire into the
factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus by President Marcos in August 1971 and to annul the same if
no legal ground could be established. Accordingly, hearings were
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014) HABANA NOTES

conducted to receive evidence on this matter, including 2 closed-door

sessions in which relevant classified information was divulged by the
government to the members of the Court.

The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review.

Two conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to
suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be
"invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof,"
and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of the privilege.
President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out the armed
forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
(c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. He
had, already, called out the armed forces, proved inadequate. Of the
two other alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the least
harsh.

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: FINALS REVIEWER (2013-2014) HABANA NOTES

Property is Property is wholesome because it is

destroyed intended for public use or purpose

POLICE POWER TAXATION EMINENT

DOMAIN Compensation is A full and fair equivalent of the property
the intangible expropriated or protection and public
altruistic feeling improvements for the taxes paid
INHERENT, and may be exercised without need of express that he has
constitutional grant contributed to the
general welfare

Not only necessary but INDISPENSABLE. The State cannot

continue or be effective unless it is able to exercise them

METHODS by which the State interferes with private rights

Presuppose an EQUIVALENT COMPENSATION for the

private rights interfered with

Primarily exercised by the LEGISLATURE

Regulates both Affect only property rights

liberty and property

Exercised only by Government Also exercised by

private entities