Article III: BILL OF RIGHTS Power of Eminent Domain

 Proceeding from the principle of jus regalia

Section 1  The State’s inherent power that need not
No person shall be deprived of: be granted even by the Constitution
 life  The government’s right to appropriate, in
 liberty the nature of compulsory sale to the state,
 or property private property for public use or purpose
without due process of law upon observance of:
 due process of law
Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection  payment for just compensation
of the laws.  acquisition of title of total destruction of
property is not essential

Bill of Rights Police Power Eminent Domain

 seeks to limit the exercise of the awesome  use of property is  Property interests
powers of the State in favor of individual merely prohibited, are appropriated
liberties. regulated or restricted and applied to some
 True role of Constitutional Law is to effect to promote public public purpose
an equilibrium between authority and welfare.
liberty so that rights are exercised within  Payment of just  Payment of just
the framework of the law and the laws are compensation is not compensation is
enacted with due deference to rights required required

Fundamental Powers
The totality of government power is contained in the
following three (3) great powers: Hierarchy of Rights
1. Police Power 1. Life
2. Power of Eminent Doman 2. Liberty
3. Power of Taxation 3. Property
 The primacy of human rights over property
Police Power rights is recognized
 Vested in the legislature  Property and property rights can be lost through
 It is the inherent and plenary power of the prescription but human rights are
State to prohibit all that is hurtful to the: imprescriptible
 Comfort  Constitutional infringement of human rights
 Safety requires a more stringent criterion:
 Welfare  Existence of a grave and immediate
of society. danger of a substantive evil that the
state has the right to prevent
Power of Taxation  Rights that enjoys primacy in the realm of
 Vested in the Legislature constitutional protection:
 The power of the State to raise revenues for  The right to peaceably assemble
public purpose  petition for redress of grievances
 Subject to limitation: it shall be uniform and  freedom of speech
equitable  freedom of expression
 Primary purpose is revenue generation but  freedom of the press
can be used as an implement of police
power
 The exaction is called a tax
Vested Rights
 rights are considered vested when the right to
enjoyment is a present interest, absolute,
unconditional and perfect or fixed and
irrefutable.
 protected property has been deemed to include
vested rights such as:
 perfected mining claims
 perfected homestead
 final judgment
 Licenses may be revoked or rescinded by
executive action as it is not a contract, property
or property right protected by the due process
clause
Private Parties
 the right to due process is mean to protect
ordinary citizens against arbitrary government
action, but not from acts committed by private
individuals or entities.
 Due process cannot be invoked in private
controversies involving private parties
Police Power
 Has been described as “the most essential,
insistent and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does to all the great public
needs.”
 No right is absolute, and the following can be
the legitimate subject of a valid exercise of
police power:
 Profession
 Calling
 Business or trade
when their conduct affects the execution of
legitimate governmental functions, the
preservation of the state, public health and
welfare and public morals.
Power to regulate the exercise of a profession,
business or trade
 Cannot be exercised by the state or its agent in
an arbitrary, despotic or oppressive manner.
 Conditions set should not require giving up
one’s constitutional rights as a condition to
acquiring a license.
 Legislature cannot validly bestow an arbitrary
power to grant or refuse a license on a public
agency or officer without prescribing definite
rules and conditions for the guidance of said
officials
 License to Practice Medicine: a privilege or
franchise granted by the government which can
be regulated through police power.
 Foreigners wishing to study medicine here
should submit competent and conclusive
evidence showing that his country’s
existing laws permit citizens of the
Philippines to practice medicine
 Means employed to attain its professed
objective should be:
 Reasonably necessary
 Not duly oppressive upon individuals
 Zoning Ordinances: a valid exercise of police
power. Private property which is not noxious or
intended for noxious purposes may not, by
zoning, be destroyed without just
compensation.
 Motels, saunas, etc are lawful
establishments which may be regulated, but
not prevented from carrying on their
business.
 Driver’s License: not a property right, but a
privilege granted by the state which may be
suspended or revoked by the state in the
exercise of its police power.
 MMDA’s functions are administrative in
nature. They are not granted police power,
let alone legislative power.
 Regulation of business operation: usually
exerted in order to merely regulate the use and
enjoyment of the property of the owner. The
power to regulate, however, does not include
the power to prohibit and confiscate.
 Prohibition to collect parking fees for the
use of facilities is tantamount to a taking
or confiscation of their properties.
 Police Power does not involve the taking or
confiscation of property, with the exception of a
few cases where there is a necessity to
confiscate private property in order to destroy it
for the purpose of protecting peace and order
and of promoting the general welfare.
 Universal Charge – imposed to ensure the
viability of the country’s electric power industry.
It is not a tax but an exaction in the exercise of
the State’s police power.
 Setback requirements: building restrictions
imposed on property owners. Implementation
of setback requirements would be tantamount
to a taking of a total of private property for
public use without just compensation is violative
of the Constitution.
  Requisites of a valid exercise of Police Power:
1. A lawful Subject – to safeguard the
rights to life, security and safety of all
the inhabitants in the area
2. Lawful Method- for the
implementation of the same
 Socialized Housing Tax – not a pure exercise of
taxing power as it is levied with a regulatory
purpose. It is primarily an exercise of police
power as it is greatly imbued with public
interest, the purpose is to benefit not only the
underprivileged and homeless constituents but
also the real property owners.
Due Process
 the constitutional right against arbitrary laws
and the guarantee of procedural fairness.
 Laws are considered arbitrary when:
 its imposition is in pursuance of the
interest of a particular class
 or if the means used in achieving the
purpose are not necessary to its
accomplishment
 Procedural Due Process - ensures a hearing
before condemnation as it proceeds from an
inquiry before judgment.
 derived from the phrase “strike – but hear
me first”
 Administrative Due Process – a specie of
procedural process in administrative
proceeding, which is simply an opportunity to
explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
 It is enough that the party is given the chance to
be heard before the case is decided.
 Due process is not violated when a person is not
heard because he or she has chosen, for
whatever reason, not to be heard.
 Due Process has two aspects:
 Substantive Due Process
 Procedural Due Process
 In order that a particular act may not be
impugned as violative of the due process
clause, there must be compliance with both
substantive and procedural requirements
thereof.
 Judgments entered in a proceeding failing to
comply with procedural due process are void,
as is one entered by a court acting in a manner
inconsistent with due process.
 Affixing signature is an acknowledged receipt of
an inspection report and notice of hearings and
that he has understood its context.
 Due process does not always and in all
situations require a trial – type proceeding. It is
satisfied when :
1. a person is notified of the charge
against him
2. given the opportunity to explain or
defend himself.
Substantive Due Process
 Refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that
interferes with the rights of a person to his life,
liberty, or property.
 Marcos Family Forfeiture of Property – in so far
as substantive due process is concerned, there
is no showing that it was unfair, unreasonable
or unjust. The Marcoses are not deprived of
their property through forfeiture for arbitrary
reason or flimsy grounds.
 Profession – is a property right.
 Requirement of licenses to be renewed
every year for the practice of their
profession is a deprivation of property
without due process.
 A reasonable relation must exist between the
purpose of the measure (police power) and the
means employed for its accomplishment.
 Police Power is subject to judicial review when
life, liberty or property is affected.
Procedural Due Process
 Means compliance with the procedures or
steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute,
in conformity with the standard of fair play and
without arbitrariness on the part of those who
are called upon to administer it.
 Due process in judicial proceedings requires the
presence of the following conditions:
a) There must be a court or tribunal clothed
with judicial power to hear and determine
the matter before it
b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired
over the person of the defendant or over
the property which is the subject of the
proceedings
c) The defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard
d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
 Due process in Forfeiture Proceedings:
technically civil in form but partakes the nature
 of a penalty. As it partake the nature of a
penalty, it affords respondents the right to a
previous inquiry similar to a preliminary
investigation in criminal cases.
 Preliminary Investigation - considered a
component part of due process in Criminal
justice. It is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well- founded belief that a crime
has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial.
 Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order in
VAWC cases- no notice and hearing. Cannot be
challenged as violative of the right to due
process as victims of VAWC may have suffered
in the hands of her tormentor if notice and
hearing were required before such acts could
be prevented.
 The ordinary requirements of procedural
due process must yield to the necessities
of protecting vital interest, among which
is protection of women and children from
violence and threats to their personal
safety and security.
 Dismissal of an employee – to be considered
valid, it must comply with both procedural
and substantive due process.
 The legality of the manner of dismissal
constitutes procedural process. It
consists of the twin requirements of 2
notices and hearing (before the 2nd
notice). It requires that the employer
should effect the dismissal in a manner
specified in the Labor Code.
 the legality of the act of dismissal
constitutes substantive due process. It
ensures that the dismissal by the
employer be made under a just or
authorized causes under the Labor code.
 JBC Proceedings – a sui generis proceeding as it
is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. It
does not automatically deprive applicant’s
entitlement to due process. The observance of
due process neither negates nor renders
illusory the fulfillment of the duty of the JBC to
recommend,
Administrative Due Process
 The following are the cardinal primary
requirements in administrative proceedings:
a) the right to a hearing, which includes
the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereto
b) the tribunal must consider the
evidence presented
c) the decision must have something to
support itself
d) substantial evidence is required
e) the decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing
f) the tribunal / body or any of its judges
must act on its or his independent
consideration of the law and the facts
of the controversy, and not simply
accept the view of a subordinate
g) the board or body should, in all
controversial question, render its
decision in such a manner the parties
to the proceedings can know the
various issues involved and the reason
for the decision rendered.
(Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial
Relations)
 Due Process of students in disciplinary
hearings: does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribe for actions
and proceedings in courts of justice. The
proceeding may be summary and cross
examination is not an essential part. The
minimum standards that should be met are :
1. must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of any accusation against them;
2. the right to answer the charges against
them, with the assistance of counsel, if
desired;
3. they shall be informed of the evidence
against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and
5. the evidence must be duly considered
by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school
authorities to hear and decide the case.
 A party in administrative inquiry (non-
litigation proceeding) is not required to be
represented by counsel. The assistance of
lawyers is desirable, not indispensable.
Hence, administrative body is under no duty
to provide the person with counsel.
 Disciplinary proceedings in military
academy - are not judicial in nature and
should be kept informal.
  Members of a Political Party’s right to due
process – political parties are private
organizations, not a state instrument. The
only rights that party members have may be
in the contract they have among all party
members.
 Laws regulating persons or entities must
give fair notice of what conduct is required
or proscribed.
 The due process requirements mandated in
Ang Tibay are not applicable to preliminary
investigations which are creations of
statutory law giving rise to mere statutory
rights. In preliminary investigations, only
likelihood or probability of guilt is required.
Equal Protection
 Is a guarantee that persons under like
circumstances and falling within the same class
are treated alike, in terms of “privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced.”
 A guarantee against undue favor and individual
or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination or the oppression of inequality.
 The equal protections class is not absolute,
rather it permits reasonable classification.
 The legislature has the power to make
“distinctions and classifications.” The equal
protection clause does not infringe on this
legislative power. A law is void on the basis only
if classifications are made arbitrarily.
 There is no violation of the equal protection
clause if the law
a) Applies equally to persons within the same
class
b) And if there are reasonable grounds for
distinguishing between those falling within
the class and those who do not fall within
the class
 Reasonable Classification:
1. Must rest on substantial distinctions
2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions
only
4. Must apply equally to all members of the
same class
 If the classification is characterized as by real
and substantial differences, one class may be
treated differently from another.
 When due process and equal protection clauses
are invoked, considering that they are not fixed
rules but rather broad standards, there is a
need for proof of such persuasive character as
would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such
showing, the presumption of validity must
prevail.
 As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with
legislative’s power absent a clear showing of
unreasonableness, discrimination or
arbitrariness.
 Classification by itself is not prohibited. A
classification can only be assailed if it is
deemed invidious, that is, it is not based on real
or substantial differences.
 Punishing Vagrancy – does not violate the equal
protection clause. It does not discriminate
against the poor and the unemployed. They are
not punished for their status, but for
conducting themselves under such
circumstances as to endanger the public peace
or cause alarm and apprehension in the
community.
 Appointive Officials vs. Elected Officials – there
are material and significant distinctions
between the two classes of officials.
 Presidential Appointees – there are substantial
distinctions that set apart presidential
appointees occupying upper – level positions in
the government from non-presidential
appointees, and those that occupy the lower
positions in the government.
 Military Court vs Civil Courts – there is no
substantial distinction between those who are
convicted of offenses which are criminal in
nature under military courts and the civil
(civilian) courts.
 Equal Protection clause requires public bodies
and institutions to treat similarly situated
individuals in a similar matter.
 Anti VAWC Law – did not violate the equal
protection clause by favoring women over men
as victims of violence and abuse whom the
State extends its protection. The fact that
women are more likely than men to be victims
of violence; the widespread gender bias and
prejudice against women all make the real
differences justifying the classification under
the law.
 Justice Mcintyre said: The accommodation of
differences is the essence of true equality.
 The freedom to believe is intrissic in very
individual and he protective robe that
guarantees its free exercise is not taken off
even if one acquires employment in the
government.
 The denial of equal protection of any law
should be an issue to be raised only by the
parties who supposedly suffer it.
 Individuals who sell property vs Real Estate
Developers - Substantial distinctions exists
between ordinary property owners and real
estate developers.
 RH Law on the ground that it is anti- poor
because it will effectively reduce the number of
the poor: No merit as it is not a violation of the
equal protection clause. It is pursuant to Secion
11, Art. XIII of the Constitution which
recognizes the distinct necessity to address the
needs of the underprivileged by providing that
they be given priority in addressing the health
development of the people.
 COMELEC prohibition of posting of materials in
PUVs and public transport terminals : it is
violative of the equal protection clause as it is
not based on substantial distinction and is not
germane to the purpose of the law.
Vague and Overbroad Doctrine
 Void-for-Vagueness – A statute or act suffers
from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at
its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the constitution in two aspects:
1. It violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by it
fair notice of the conduct to avoid
2. And it leaves law enforcers unbridled
discretion in carrying out its provisions and
become an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle.
 Overbreadth Doctrine – a proper governmental
purpose, constitutionally subject to state
regulation, may not be achieved by means that
unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly,
thereby invading the area of protected
freedoms. Unlike the vagueness doctrine, it
assumes that individuals will understand what a
statute prohibits and will accordingly refrain
from that behavior, even though some of it is
protected.
 Possession of illegal firearms law – not vague as
the law is clear and ambiguous.
 Adoption of national computerized ID system –
Unconstitutional. The broadness, the
vagueness and the over-breadth of this law, if
implemented, will put the privacy of the people
in clear and present danger. It failed to show
that the biometrics is limited only for
identification purposes.
 As long as the law affords some
comprehensible guide or rule that would
inform those who are subject to it what
conduct would render them liable to its
penalties, its validity will be sustained.
 Only statues on the following can be facially
challenged:
 Free speech
 Religious freedom
 Other fundamental rights
 Ordinary penal statues cannot be subjected to
a facial challenge because if it will be allowed,
the prosecution of crimes may be hampered.
 A statute or act suffers from the defect of
vagueness when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as
to its application.
 In determining whether the words used in a
statute are vague, words may not only be taken
in accordance with their plain meaning alone,
but also in relation to other parts of the
statute.
Review Standards
 The supreme Court Adopted Several Stards ro
tests for purpose of judicial review, to wit:
1. Rational Basis
2. Strict Scrutiny
3. Intermediate Scrutiny
 Rational Basis Examination – laws or
ordinances are upheld if they rationally further
a legitimate governmental interest
 Strict Scrutiny Standard – 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.
 Intermediate Scrutiny Test – governmental
interest is extensively examined and the
availability of less restrictive measures is
considered.
 Under the rational relationship test, there must
be a concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful
method. Lacking concurrence of these two
requisites, the police power measure shall be
struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into
private rights and a violation of the due process
clause.
 When the speech restraints take the form of a
content-neutral regulation, only a substantial
governmental interest is required for its
validity. Because regulations of this tye are not
designed to suppress any particular message,
they are not subject to the strictest from of
judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approach.
 The intermediate approach has been
formulated in this manner:
1. If it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest
2. The governmental interest is unrelated to
the suppression of free expression
3. And the incident restriction on alleged
(freedom of speech and expression) is no
greater than is essential to the furtherance
of that interest.
Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes Inc.,
The dispossession of property or in this case the
stoppage of the construction of a building in one’s
own property would violate substantive due process.
No law, ordinance, or rule for that matter, provides
that the construction of a building outside the Rizal
Park is prohibited if the building is within the
background sightline or view of the Rizal Monument.
Lagon vs. Velasco
Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which
requires a defendant to adduce his testimony and
that of his witnesses by judicial affidavits, does not
violate procedural due process. The Court ruled that
"procedural rules should be treated with utmost
respect and due regard, since they are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the
worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival
claims and in the administration of justice."
LimKaichong vs LBP
Petitioner is entitled to equal protection accorded to
other landowners to be heard on claims for re-
evaluation. Section 9, Article III of the 1987
Constitution provides that “private property shall
not be taken for public use without just
compensation." A petition alleging the violation of
equal protection should not be forthwith dismissed
but should be fully heard to ascertain and determine
if the very serious allegations were true.
MPSTA vs. Garcia,
the requirements of publication and filing must be
strictly complied with, as these were designed to
safeguard against abuses on the part of lawmakers
and to guarantee the constitutional right to due
process and to information on matters of public
concern. Even in cases where the parties
participated in the public consultation and
submitted their respective comments, strict
compliance with the requirement of publication
cannot be dispensed with.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Conti
Conti was deprived of his Constitutional Right to Due
Process. In administrative proceedings, due process
is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge
against him and given an opportunity to explain or
defend oneself. In this case, Conti was never given
an opportunity to air his side. He was not furnished
with a copy of the Ombudsman order requiring him
to file a counter-affidavit.
Imbong vs. Ochoa
The RH Law does not violate the constitutional right
to the life of the unborn. The RH Law is in line with
the intent and actually proscribes abortion. It clearly
mandates that protection be afforded from the
moment of fertilization.
Cruz vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club
Jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a
nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.
The determination and responsibility of abatement
is with the district health officer. In the case at bar,
there were no factual findings of the basketball ring
being a nuisance per se. Under the general welfare
clause, police power is exercised by Sangguniang
Bayan. However, no barangay or city ordinance was
cited to justify the summary abatement.
Evasco vs. Montañez
It has been stressed in Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association
that while police power is lodged primarily in the
National Legislature, Congress may delegate this
power to local government units. Once delegated,
the agents can exercise only such legislative powers
as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking
body.
Subido Vs. CA
Section 11 of the AMLA providing for ex-parte
application and inquiry by the AMLC into certain
bank deposits and investments does not violate
substantive due process, there being no physical
seizure of property involved at that stage. It is the
preliminary and actual seizure of the bank deposits
or investments in question which brings these within
reach of the judicial process, specifically a
determination that the seizure violated due process
ALFI vs. Garin
FDA acting on their regulatory powers as an exercise
of its quasi-judicial power still requires the
compliance of the twin requirements of notice and
hearing.
LTO Disciplinary Board vs. Gutierrez
Procedural due process simply means the
opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. 'To be heard' does not mean only
verbal arguments in court; one may also be heard
thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard,
either through oral arguments or pleadings, is
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process
Republic vs. Sereno
Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the
inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter.
The presumption that the judge will undertake his
noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with
law and evidence, and without fear or favor.
Obergefell Vs. Hodges
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in
the liberty of the person, and 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. Same-sex
couples may exercise the fundamental right to
marry.
Villanueva vs. JBC
The JBC does not discriminate when it employs
number of years of service to screen and
differentiate applicants from the competition. The
number of years of service provides a relevant basis
to determine proven competence which may be
measured by experience, among other factors.
People vs. Amarela
YES, the “women’s honor” doctrine (Maria Clara
doctrine) a travesty of justice as it puts the accused
in an unfair disadvantage. today, we simply cannot
be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure
and reserved Filipino woman.In this way, we can
evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of
rape without gender bias or cultural misconception.
It is important to weed out these unnecessary
notions because an accused may be convicted solely
on the testimony of the victim, provided of course,
that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Thus, in order for us to affirm a
conviction for rape, we must believe beyond
reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by
the victim.
Lagman vs. Medialdea
It is best to stress that the vagueness doctrine (and
facial challenges) has a special application only to
free-speech cases. They are not appropriate for
testing the validity of penal statutes.
SPARKS vs Quezon City
In this case, petitioners' invocation of the void for
vagueness doctrine is improper, considering that
they do not properly identify any provision in any of
the Curfew Ordinances, which, because of its vague
terminology, fails to provide fair warning and notice
to the public of what is prohibited or required so
that one may act accordingly. The void for vagueness
doctrine is premised on due process considerations,
which are absent from this particular claim.
The Court finds that all three Curfew Ordinances
have passed the first prong of the strict scrutiny test;
that is, that the State has sufficiently shown a
compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and
prevent juvenile crime in the concerned localities.
However, only the Quezon City Ordinance has
passed the second prong of the strict scrutiny test,
as it is the only issuance out of the three which
provides for the least restrictive means to achieve
this interest.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in
their:
 Persons
 Houses
 Papers
 and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable,
No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge:
 after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce
 and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
The Right to Privacy
 Simply put, it is the right to be left alone
 One of the most precious rights of the citizen in
a free society is the right to be left alone in the
privacy of his own house.
 Defined as the right to be free from
unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or
from intrusion into one’s private activities in
such a way as to cause humiliation to a
person’s ordinary sensibilities.
 The right of an individual to be free from
unwarranted publicity, or to live without
unwarranted interference by the public in
matters in which the public is not necessarily
concerned.
Probable Cause
 Such facts and circumstances as will induce a
cautious man to reply upon and act in
pursuance thereof
 A search warrant must:
a) Be based on a probable cause
b) Contain a particular description of the
place to be searched
c) Must describe the items or property to
be seized
 A lack of a more specific description will make it
apparent that there has not been a sufficient
showing to the judge that the described items
are to be found in a particular place
 Probable cause must first focus on a specific
location
 In issuing a search warrant, the judge must
strictly comply with the requirements of the
Constitution and the statutory provisions
 The general rule is that the judge is not
required, when determining probable cause for
the issuance of warrants of arrest, to conduct a
de novo (starting from the beginning) hearing.
The judge only needs to personally review the
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a
probable cause to see if it is supported by
substantial evidence. However, it is not unusual
for a judge, for the purpose of determining
probable cause, to hold a hearing and examine
inconsistent statements and related
documents.
 A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
on evidence showing that:
a) more likely than not, a crime has been
committed
b) and that it was committed by the
accuse.
 There is no need to examine the evidence with
care to prevent material damage to a potential
accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the
guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to
protect the State from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged
offenses and holding trials arising from false,
fraudulent or groundless charges.
 While it is true that the legality of an arrest
depends upon the reasonable discretion of the
officer, it cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously
exercised without unduly compromising a
citizen’s constitutionally – granted right to
liberty.
 A previous arrest or existing criminal record,
even for the same offense, will not suffice to
satisfy the exacting requirements provided in
the law in order to justify a lawful warrantless
arrest.
 Personal Knowledge of the arresting officer
that a crime had in fat just been committed is
required.
 Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and
must not always be attributed to one’s
consciousness of guilt. Flight is susceptible of
various explanations.
 Probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence, as long as there is substantial basis
for crediting the hearsay. Substantial basis is
different from substantial evidence.
 Hearsay Evidence – admissible in determining
probable cause in preliminary investigation
because such investigation is merely
preliminary and does not finally adjudicate
rights and obligations of parties.
 A search warrant that covers several counts of
a certain specific offense does not violate the
one-specific offense rule. (ex: 6 counts of
murder)
 Human remains are personal properties that
can be the subject of a search and seizure.
 Personal Property refers to the thing’s mobility,
and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated
by a particular person. All things that can be
transferred from place to place are deemed to
be personal property.
Issue by a Judge
 Only a judge can issue a search warrant
 PCGG – not considered as “such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by
law”
 general search and seizures as proscribe for
being violative of the rights enshrined in the Bill
of Rights.
Particularity of Description
 the constitution requires that a search warrant
should particularly describe the things to be
seized. The purpose is to leave the officers of
the law with no discretion regarding what
articles they should seize, to the end that
unreasonable searches and seizures may not be
made and that abuses may not be committed.
 The law does not require that the things to be
seized must be described in precise and minute
detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part
of the searching authorities. The use of the
phrase “and the like” is of no moment.
 the description is required to be specific only in
so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.
Substantial similarity of those articles
described as a class or specie would suffice.
 General Warrant – a search or arrest warrant
that is not particular as to the person to be
arrested or the property to be seized. It is one
that allows the seizure of the thing under a
warrant describing another and gives the
officer executing the warrant the discretion
over which items to take.
 The warrant is valid when it enables the police
officers to readily identify the properties to be
seized and leaves them with no discretion
regarding the articles to be seized.
 A search warrant fulfills the requirement of
particularity in the description when the things
described are limited to those that bear a direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is
being issued.
Searching Questions
 in determining the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of a search warrant, the
examining magistrate must make probing and
exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma
examination of the applicant and the witness.
 The mandate of the judge is for him to conduct
a full and searching examination of the
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce. In the absence of a rule to the
contrary, the determination of probable cause
cannot be delegated by the judge, in part or in
whole, regardless of the qualifications of the
person on whom reliance is placed.
 Although there is no hard and fast rule as to
how a judge may conduct his examination, it is
axiomatic that the said examination must be
probing and exhaustive and not merely
routinary, general, peripheral or perfunctory.
 If the judge fails to determine probable cause
by personally examining the applicant and his
witness in the form of searching questions
before issuing a search warrant, it constitutes
grave abuse of discretion.
 A search warrant proceeding is independent of
any criminal case. It is ex parte and non-
adversarial
 The judge may ask leading questions depending
on the circumstances. But it bears stressing
that the determination of the existence of
probable cause must be made by a detached
and neutral judge.
Warrantless Search
 a search may be conducted by law enforcers
only on the strength of a valid search warrant.
 Nevertheless, the Constitutional proscription
against warrantless searches and seizures
admits of certain exceptions such as:
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest.
2. seizures of evidence in plain view
3. searches of a moving vehicle
4. consented warrantless searches
5. custom searches stop and frisk searches
 6. searches under exigent and emergency
circumstances
 Acts should be sufficient to engender a
reasonable suspicion that a person is up to
something illegal
 In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and
the right of the apprehending officers to
conduct a warrantless search not only on the
person of the suspect, but also in the
permissible area within the latter’s reach.
 “Within his immediate control” means the area
from within which he might gain possession of
a weapon or destructible evidence.
 To be caught in flagrante delicto necessarily
implies the positive identification of the culprit
by an eyewitness. Such identification is a direct
evidence of culpability. As such arrest is valid,
the arresting policeman is therefore authorized
to validly search the person of the accused.
 Plain View Doctrine – the exception to the
inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest
outside the suspect’s person and premises
under his immediate control. Usually applied
when officer is not searching for evidence but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object.
 Personal knowledge of a crime just committed
does not require actually presence at the scene
while a crime was being committed. It is
enough that evidence of the recent commission
of the crime is patent and the police officer has
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the
person to be arrested has recently committed
the crime.
 An arrest is made by an actual restrain of the
person to be arrested, or by his submission to
the custody of the person making the arrest.
Anticipatory Warrants
 not categorically unconstitutional as they are
no different in principle from ordinary
warrants.
 the particularity requirement does not include
the conditions precedent to execution of the
warrant.
 a media ride along violates the rights of
homeowners
 Officers executing a search warrant may take
reasonable action to secure the premises and
to ensure their own safety and efficacy of the
search.
Chain of Custody
 the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure / confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory for safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.
 eliminates doubts concerning the proper
preservation of the identity and the integrity of
the corpus delicti of the crime.
 While the court is mindful that the law
enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity
in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent.
Open Fields and Curtilage
 open fields are not a constitutionally protected
area because they cannot be construed as
persons, house, papers, of effects.
 There is no privacy expectation in open fields
 Aerial surveillance of curtilage is not included in
the protection
 outdoor area immediately surrounding the
home is protected. They are considered as an
extension of the house.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
 Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test –
determines whether a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and whether the
expectation has been violated.
 Ople vs Torres: the reasonableness of a
person’s expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test:
1. whether, by his conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy
2. and this expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable
 The reasonableness of a person’s expectation
of privacy depends on a case to case basis.
 Right to Privacy is not only confined to his
house as it may extend to places where he has
the right o exclude the public or deny them
access. It covers places, locations, or even
situation which an individual considers as
private. (As long as the society recognizes this.)
 The installation of surveillance cameras should
not cover places where there is reasonable
expectation of privacy, unless the consent of
the individual was obtained.
 Individuals in automobiles have a reduced
expectation of privacy, because vehicles
generally do not serve as residence or
repositories of personal effects.
 Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and
searched, there must be probable cause or
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
 An officer needs a warrant before searching a
motor vehicle after an arrest of an occupant of
the vehicle except when officers have reason to
believe that the evidence for the crime will be
found in the vehicle.
Computers in Workplace
 A search by a government employer of an
employee’s office is justified at inception when
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting
that it will turn up evidence that the employee
is guilty of a work-related misconduct.
 Evidence obtained from a personal computer of
a government employee without a valid search
warrant cannot be used as evidence.
 Government Issued Computer – a government
property which the CSC has absolute right to
regulate and monitor.
Drug and DNA Testing
 requiring mandatory, random and suspicionless
drug testing of students are constitutional. It is
within the prerogative of the education
institutions to require, as a condition for
admission, compliance with reasonable school
rules and regulations and policies. The right to
enroll is not absolute, it is subject to fair and
reasonable and equitable requirements.
 drug testing requirement for private and public
employees is reasonable and constitutional.
 The operative concepts of mandatory drug
testing are “randomness” and “supicionless”. In
the case of persons charged with a crime,
mandatory drug testing can never be random
or suspicionless. To impose mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
harness medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution and thus would violate a person’s
right to privacy.
 During the hearing on the motion for DNA
testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish possibility of paternity.
 Drug test in extortion cases – violative of right
to privacy.
Bank Inquiry and Freeze Order
 bank inquiry order can only be availed when
there are actual cases pending with the courts
violations of the AMLA. It should be done upon
order of any competent court.
 AMLA does not generally sanction ex parte
applications and issuances of bank inquiry
orders except in cases provided for in Section
11 of the law.
 AMLC can inquire into bank accounts without
having to obtain judicial order in cases where
there is probable cause.
 A bank inquiry order is not a search warrant or
warrant of arrest as it contemplates a direct
object but not the seizure of persons or
property.
 The probable cause required for the issuance of
a freeze order refers to “such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet, prudent or cautious man to believe
that:
a) an unlawful activity and / or a money
laundering offense is about to be, is being
or has been committed
b) and that the account or any monetary
instrument or property subject thereof
sought to be frozen is in any way related to
said unlawful activity and / or money
laundering offense.
 2 requisites for the issuance of a freeze order:
1. the application ex parte by the AMLC
2. the determination of probable cause
Cybercrime Search
 the power to issue subpoenas is not exclusively
a judicial function
 Executive agencies have the power to issue
subpoenas as an adjunct to their investigatory
powers
 Disclosure can be made only after judicial
intervention
 computer data, produced or created by their
writers or authors may constitute personal
property. They are protected from
unreasonable searches or seizures.
Exclusionary Rule
 The constitution mandates that a search and
seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon
the existence of probable cause, absent of
which, such search and seizure becomes
“unreasonable”.
 Evidence obtained and confiscated on the
occasion of such unreasonable search and
seizure is tainted and should be excluded for
being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
Subido vs. CA
Eugenio already declared that Section 11, even with
the allowance of an ex parte application therefor, "is
not a search warrant or warrant of arrest as it
contemplates a direct object but not the seizure of
persons or property." It bears repeating that the
''bank inquiry order" under Section 11 is a
provisional remedy to aid the AMLC in the
enforcement of the AMLA.
Sindac vs. People
No lawful warrantless arrest made on Sindac.
Considering that PO3 Peñamora was at a
considerable distance away from the alleged
criminal transaction (5 to 10 meters), the Court finds
it highly doubtful that said arresting officer was able
to reasonably ascertain that any criminal activity was
afoot so as to prompt him to conduct a lawful in
flagrante delicto arrest and, thereupon, a
warrantless search.
People vs. Breis and Yumol
Yes, abandoned articles or left behind bags on the
bus can be searched without warrant. The court
cited different rulings from United States Supreme
Court that "abandoned articles, such as those
thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and
may be lawfully searched and seized by law
enforcement authorities". In this case, it is apparent
that there is no objectionable warrantless search
and seizure of the box of marijuana abandoned in
the bus which makes the search valid.
Though the Constitution prohibits unreasonable
search and seizure, there’s an exception to the rule.
This exception was given in People v. Libnao where a
warrantless search and seizure are allowed because
of how fast a vehicle can be moved out of the
jurisdiction. In the given case, the object subject to
the search was the bus.
Ogayon vs. People
Substantial basis means that the questions of the
examining judge brought out such facts and
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed, and the objects in connection with
the offense sought to be seized are in the place
sought to be searched.
Dela Cruz vs. People
Routine baggage inspections conducted by port
authorities, although done without search warrants,
are not unreasonable searches per se. The security
measures of X-ray scanning and inspection in
domestic ports are akin to routine security
procedures in airports. Moreover, port authorities
were acting within their duties and functions when it
used X-ray scanning machines for inspection of
passengers' bags. When the results of the X-ray scan
revealed the existence of firearms in the bag, the
port authorities had probable cause to conduct a
search of petitioner's bag.
People vs. Manago
The pieces of information which the police officers
got after they conducted a thorough investigation
and verification proceedings, which are the identities
of the robbery suspects, the place where they reside,
and the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in
the robbery were already enough for said police
officers to secure the necessary warrants to accost
the robbery suspects. Consequently, there was no
longer any exigent circumstance that would have
justified the necessity of setting up the checkpoint in
this case for the purpose of searching the subject
vehicle. In addition, the checkpoint was arranged for
the targeted arrest of Manago, who was already
identified as the culprit of the robbery incident. In
this regard, it cannot, therefore, be said that the
checkpoint was meant to conduct a routinary and
indiscriminate search of moving vehicles. Rather, it
was used as a subterfuge to put into force the
capture of the fleeing suspect. Unfortunately, this
setup cannot take the place of - nor skirt the legal
requirement of - procuring a valid search/arrest
warrant given the circumstances of this case.
Villamor vs. People
In the case at bar, the warrantless arrest conducted
by PD Peñaflor and his team was unlawful as the
same does not satisfy the requirements of an in
flagrante delicto arrest. Consequently, the search
and seizure of the effects found inside the house of
Bonaobra are likewise illegal since there could be no
valid search incident to an illegal warrantless arrest.
Thus, evidence seized from Bonaobra's house is
inadmissible for being a proverbial fruit of the
poisonous tree.
District of Columbia vs. Wesb
YES. The police officers have probable cause to People vs. Comprado
arrest the party-goers. There was no valid search of moving vehicle.
It “requires only a probability or substantial chance The search in this case could not be classified as a
of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such search of a moving vehicle. In this type of search, the
activity.” Considering the totality of the vehicle is the target and not a· specific person.
circumstances, the officers made an “entirely Further, in search of a moving vehicle, the vehicle
reasonable inference” that the partygoers were was intentionally used as a means to transport illegal
knowingly taking advantage of a vacant house as a items. It is worthy to note that the information
venue for their late-night party. relayed to the police officers was that a passenger of
that particular bus was carrying marijuana such that
Saluday vs. People when the police officers boarded the bus, they
YES, the warrantless inspection of petitioner’s bag searched the bag of the person matching the
by the Davao Task Force at a military checkpoint description given by their informant and not the
constituted a reasonable search. Bus No. 66 of cargo or contents of the said bus.
Davao Metro Shuttle was a vehicle of public
transportation where passengers have a reduced
expectation of privacy. Further, SCAA Buco merely
lifted petitioner's bag. This visual and minimally
intrusive inspection was even less than the standard
x-ray and physical inspections done at the airport
and seaport terminals where passengers may further
be required to open their bags and luggages.
Considering the reasonableness of the bus search,
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no
application, thereby precluding the necessity for a
warrant.

People vs. Pastrana

In this case at bar, there was a failure to specify what
particular provision of the SRC the respondents
allegedly violated. In addition, even assuming that
violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC (as belatedly
pointed out by petitioners) was specified in the
application for search warrant, there could have
been no finding of probable cause in connection
with that offense. Consequently, it could not have
been possible for the issuing judge as well as the
applicant for the search warrant to determine that
the items sought to be seized are connected to any
crime. Hence, there was lack of particularity in the
description of the things sought for seizure.

No. There was no valid “stop and frisk” search on the

accused.
The case is not sufficient to incite a genuine reason
that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on
accused-appellant. An examination of the records
reveals that no overt physical act could be properly
attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse
susp1c10n in the minds of the arresting officers that
he had just committed, was committing, or was
about to commit a crime.
Section 3
1. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except:
 upon lawful order of the court,
 or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.

2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

 The individual’s desire for privacy is never

absolute.
 Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in
our laws
 The meticulous regard we accord to these zones
arises not only from out conviction that the right
to privacy is a constitutional right and the right
most valued by civilized men, but also from our
adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which mandates that, 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.
 With the advent of modern computing and
information communication technology,
Congress enacted into the law the Data Privacy
Act of 2012 which established the National
Privacy Commission and the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 which defined and
penalizes internet and cybercrime misuse of
devices, cybersquatting, computer-related
forgery, computer related fraud, computer
related identity and cybersex.
