m

¯

 

m à rmal declarati n r enumerati n
the
undamental rights secured and  %&' ! %(  3rimacy
Human ights ver 3r perty ights
guaranteed by the C nstituti n t individuals t pr tect them
r m (3hilippine Bl ming ills gmpl yees Org. v. 3B C .)
arbitrary and desp tic exercise
g vernmental p ers
m estricti ns are directed against the state and d n t g vern relati ns &)*+*& 
beteen private pers ns. m eed
r n tice and pp rtunity t be heard (n t actual hearing)
 m Úuarantee
pr cedural
airness

       ¯   
 
 
  m 3urp se
pr cedural due pr cess: (a.) c ntribute t the accuracy and
 

 
  
¯  ¯¯  thus minimize err r in deprivati n (b.) gives a sense
rati nal
¯

 

¯ participati n in a decisi n than can a

ect his destiny and thus enhances
 his dignity as a thinking pers n.
¯
 !"#$# m ai lati ns may be cured by m ti n
r rec nsiderati n
›m 3 lice 3 er
Mm  st essential, insistent and the least limitable
p ers, a. equirements
)* ,&  %#  -*)%&%+ &)%#( (Banc Ãil v.
extending t all the great public needs 3alanca)CO
Mm 9nherent and plenary p er in the State, hich enables it t 1.m  urt r tribunal ith judicial p er t hear and determine
pr hibit all hurt
ul t the c m
rt, sa
ety, and el
are
s ciety. cases.
Mm est up n public necessity and the right
state and public t 2.m -urisdicti n must be la
ully acquired ver the pers n r
sel
pr tecti n. pr perty
Mm P dge in the legislature and may be delegated t the executive 3.m pp rtunity t be heard
Mm equisites
valid exercise: la
ul subject and la
ul means 4.m -udgment rendered up n a la
ul hearing
›m gminent D main Ô
 3r perty al ne is resp nsible
r claim in pr ceedings, but the
Mm ight
the state t acquire private pr perty
r public use up n individual is still named as de
endant (unlike 

payment
just c mpensati n   tice t the de
endant in this case is O" abs lutely essential.
›m "axati n  3resumpti n
regularity. "hat up n n tice t the pr perty, there is n tice
Mm 3 er
the state t raise revenues. Such must be
r public t the individual.
purp se, equitable and uni
rm  3ublicati n is already deemed su

icient
r pr cedural due pr cess.

m Sh uld be mere regulati n n t pr hibiti n
a pr
essi n r calling that is 3

 


legitimate.  ere exp sure t publicity d es n t a

ect impartiality in this case.
m 3resumpti n
c nstituti nality  3ers n alleging must have direct pr

in
luence, n t just mere p ssibility.
m 3rincipal Yardstick against exercise
p er  "he public cann t be excluded, especially hen the issue is
public interest.
›m Due pr cess clause
›m gqual pr tecti n clause b. equirements
 )* ,&  %# # ¯)$%#% %" &)%#(  
m Pi
e ± n t just the pr tecti n
the right t be alive r security
ne¶s * %.-*)%&%+&)%#( (Ang "ibay v. C9)HCSSB9
limb against physical harm. 9t is right t a g d li
e emphasizing n the 1.m ight t %#( including right t present case and submit
quality
living evidence
m Piberty ± measure

reed m hich may be enj yed in a civilized 2.m "ribunal must &# %)evidence presented
c mmunity. 9t is the right
the citizen t be
ree t use his
aculties in all 3.m Decisi n must have s mething t *,, itsel

la
ul ays. 4.m gvidence must be */ #%+
m 3r perty ± include vested rights, d es n t include public

ice, license r 5.m Decisi n must be / ) # "%)#& presented r at least
mere privilege unless such has ev lved int s me
rm
pr perty c ntained in the rec rd
pr tected by the c nstituti n. "his is everything ver hich man may 6.m "ribunal r b dy must act n its n i#),#)# c nsiderati n
have exclusive d mini n r nership. 7.m B ard r b dy must render its decisi n in a manner here

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
parties can kn  the vari us issues and the  #
r decisi n.
c. 0)%%#&)%#(
1.m gntitled t n tice and hearing be
re issuance
arrant ± O
  tice  uld de
eat the purp se
the arrest.
 Úuilt is n t adjudged during these pr ceedings.
2.m gntitled t n tice and hearing during the pr ceedings.
3.m Bail/pr visi nal liberty n t generally given, but bail may be
given under special circumstances:
a.m When extraditee is O" a
light risk
b.m Special Humanitarian c nsiderati ns
c.m gxtraditee d es O" p se a danger t the c mmunity.
 Once bail has been granted, it cann t be rev ked.
gxtraudicial 3r ceedings c nsidered in the nature
criminal cases
because there is arrest detenti n and
rced trans
er t an ther
state. "hus due pr cess must be bserved by pr viding bail.
e. Academic Cases
,&)*+1*%$# !&)$%&&  (AD v. Capul ng)
9A9AC
1. #!$) in riting
the nature
the accusati n
2. ight t #  charges, pti nally ith c unsel
3. ight
accused t be %#!$)
evidence against them
4. ight t ))*& n evidence
5. gvidence must be &# %)).
&aHC
gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic
reed m:
1. Wh may teach
2. What may be taught
3. H  it is taught
4. Wh is admitted t study acc rding t this, they may expel
students h vi late sch l rules and regulati ns.

. Dep rtati n 3r ceedings ± e

ect is 3enal in character, s there must be due
* 
pr cess .9WSHD
1.m 3reliminary #" %(%# t determine i
they are aliens
2.m #
Arrest issued a
ter
inding
just cause
3.m Charge must ,&%!'act r missi n
4.m ight t be )and present evidence up n la
ul hearing
( pr secut r because it is a summary judicial pr ceeding)
5.m Ãinal )&+%#
dep rtati n ith basis
g. Ãixing
ates and egulati n
3r
essi ns
#)) !(*+%#! 
Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
1.m  tice and Hearing (imp rtant
r quasi judicial b dies because
ith ut it the c urts  uld lack jurisdicti n)
2.m ate must be reas nable and just (may be implied)
3.m ate must n t be c n
iscat ry and ppressive.
 Ú vernment b dies have 2 p ers:
1.m Quasi Pegislative general rules, hich ill a

ect everyb dy in a
certain class. 
rm
n tice, hearing r cr ssexaminati n
required.
2.m Quasijudicial applies exclusively t a speci
ic entity r pers n. Any
change must be made a
ter due n tice and hearing.
3rice Ãixing is c nsidered as an exercise
a quasilegislative
uncti n
(aceda v. gB)
(*+%# ! ! %# a pr
essi nal license bec mes a pr perty right
a
ter its issuance. (C r na v. H3A3)
 cann t be taken aay ith ut due pr cess, n tice r hearing.
"#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an

icial under investigati n
a
ter charges are br ught (even be
re the charges are br ught and heard)
since the same is n t in the nature
penalty, but merely a preliminary step in
an administrative investigati n. Suspensi n is n t a punishment r penalty
r
acts
dish nesty and misc nduct in

ice, but is nly a preventive measure.
"here
re it is n t a denial
pr cedural due pr cess (Castill C v. Barbers)
% $% +%#%"
1.m ust be
r a "+%) reas n
2.m ust be given the pp rtunity t be ), due pr cess
3.m Any evidence derived
r m &#! %#/ c unsel is inadmissible.
 ight t c unsel is a right even in civil and administrative
pr ceedings. "he Pab r C de expressly grants the right t c unsel.
(Sala v. PC)
 When a statute lacks a c mprehensible standard, it vi lates due pr cess
r

ailure t acc rd pers ns, especially pers ns targeted by it,
air n tice

c nduct t av id, and it leaves la en
rcers ith unbridled discreti n 9
carrying ut pr visi ns.
 "he lack
c mprehensible standards means the statute is vague and
am unts t a lack
due pr cess because
lack
ÃA9 O"9Cg and there is
D g DgPgÚA"9O.
Overbreadth: Ú vernment purp se must n t be achieved ith means hich
are unnecessarily br ad and invasive
pr tected
reed ms.
1A 2010
m
*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser
r
#)) !+%&
hatever decisi n might be rendered against the principal, hether r n t the
surety as impleaded in the c mplaint.  tice t the principal is n tice t the
surety, thus they have been given an pp rtunity t participate in litigati n. 9

they ch se n t t intervene, it is deemed that they have aived their right t
be heard.
  tice t the principal is als n tice t the surety (Str ngh ld v. CA)

%!!#)* $ )
m à r
eiture pr ceedings are n t penal in nature there
re  uld nly need
substantial evidence. "here is als n need
r assistance
c unsel
(Ãeeder v. CA)
 "he right t be presumed inn cent is given nly t an individual in
criminal cases; and n t t c rp rate entities.
+ * ,&)%#( are a valid exercise
p lice p er
the State t
pr tect the public
r m the dissipati n

unds and bank runs. 9t d es n t
1.m Pa
ul 3urp se
r the general el
are
the c mmunity.
2.m Pa
ul eth d reas nable, n n ppressive and n narbitrary
means and meth ds empl yed in c nnecti n t the
acc mplishment
the purp se.
 3 lice p er cann t inter
ere ith private pr perty
r purely aesthetic
purp ses. But here the act is reas nably ithin a pr per c nsiderati n

and care
r the public health, sa
ety r c m
rt, it sh uld n t be
disturbed by the c urts. (Churchill v. a

erty)
 "he State may n t under the guise
3 lice 3 er, permanently divest
ners
the bene
icial use
their pr perty and practically c n
iscate
them s lely t preserve r assure the aesthetic appearance
the
c mmunity. (3e ple v. Ãajard )
An rdinance may be c nsidered invalid i
: P3PS
1.m 9t © 

 


 




+%$% the may r¶s discreti n
need n tice and hearing as l ng as there is subsequent judicial revie. (CB v.
CA)
3r cedure: gg
1.m 0$%#%# by Central Bank
2.m , by  netary B ard n the bank c ncerned
3.m 3rima Ãacie "%)#& ab ut the bank¶s bad
inancial c nditi n
#&++%# ! ,' %( i
deemed t be a cust m vi lates due
pr cess (American 9nter
ashi n v. O3)
0, *  initially as nly a privilege but eventually ev lved int a

rm
pr perty right hich sh uld n t be rem ved arbitrarily and ith ut
due pr cess.
9nput taxes O" pr perties n r pr perty rights but mere statut ry privilege.

*/ #%"*&  P

 

m 9nterest
public requires such inter
erence and the means are
reas nably necessary
r the acc mplishment
the purp se and n t
unduly ppressive
m Piberty
the citizen may be restrained in the interest
public health,
public rder and sa
ety, r anything else ithin the sc pe
p lice p er.
m 9t is the duty
the legislature t : 9 AÚ9
c nstitutes a taking ith ut due pr cess. "he m rtgages and l ans are
1.m determine hat the i# 
the public require
2.m Determine hat $ * are necessary
r the pr tecti n
such
interests.
 "he determinati n,
the legislature n hat is a pr per exercise

p lice p er is subject t the supervisi n
the c urts ( S v. " ribi )
2.m 9t 
#,*,  t be attained by requiring a permit
3.m enumerates n c nditi n
r its grant r re
usal
4.m &2  #)) , c n
erring up n the may r arbitrary and
unrestricted p er.
3*#%&%,++%&# ! c uld be classi
ied int : OO
(1) "h se imp sed
r (*+%#(&&*,%# r regular enterprises,
(2) "he regulati n r restricti n
##.* !*+&&*,%# r enterprises,
(3) Ã r "#* purp ses nly.
Ordinance is a valid exercise
p lice p er t minimize certain practices
hurt
ul t public m rals. "he alarming increase in the rate
pr stituti n,
adultery and
rnicati n in anila traceable in great part t the existence

m tels. "axati n may be made t implement a p lice p er and the am unt,
bject, and instance
taxati n is dependent up n the l cal legislative b dy.


  0 p lice p er t regulate behavi r. C ngress can legislate
m rality thr ugh sin taxes. (grmitaalate v. City ay r
anila)
 "he extincti n
 rtgage and ther liens ned by legitimate credit rs

purely private and have n t sh n t be a

ected ith private interest;
there
re, there as n cause t deprive the private individuals
vested
pr perty rights. Outright c n
iscati n
3r perty ith ut O"9Cg and
HgA9Ú is invalid. 9
there is a 2%#(, there must be ust C mpensati n.
(DC v. 3hil aeterans Bank)

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

 Pegislature, may n t, under the guise
pr tecting public interest, arbitrarily

inter
ere ith private businesses, hich is a pr perty right
the ner.
  !  #/+#  !   #4  0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v.
"heaters, cinemas and ther exhibiti ns cann t be c nsidered 3

(Balacuit v. CÃ9)
(*# ± a statute r act is vague hen it lacks c mprehensible
standards that men
c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and di

er as t its applicati n. 9t vi lates due pr cess
r
ailure t
acc rd t pers n
air n tice
the c nduct t av id and it leaves la en
rcers
unbridled discreti n in carrying ut its pr visi ns and bec mes an arbitrary

lexing
g vernment muscles.
%).!."(*#  )&%# ± a statute hich either
rbids r requires
the d ing
an act in terms s vague that men
c mm n intelligence must
necessarily guess its meaning and di

er as t its applicati n
"/) )&%# ± a g vernmental purp se may n t be achieved by
means hich seep unnecessarily br adly and thereby invade the area

pr tected
reed m

 !"+%))%##&C 3"Ú
(a) d es n t &#"# the c nstituti n r statute
(b) must 

*#!% r ppressive
(c) must 

,%+#))% &%$%#'
(d) must 
pr hibit but may regulate )
(e) must be (#+ and c nsistent ith public p licy
(
) must 

*# #/+
 An rdinance must n t c ntravene the C nstituti n r any Statute (agtajas
v. 3ryce)
 Due pr cess d es n t alays entail judicial pr ceedings, especially hen it
c mes t taxati n.
 9n ++(+* !,', the acti n
the p ssess r and n t the ner is
binding. 9t serves t prevent
urther illegal use
the pr perty.
 "he state is n t required t c mpensate the ner
r pr perty it has
already la
ully acquired under the exercise
g vernmental auth rity ther
than the p er
eminent d main. (Bennis v. ichigan)
! %#. is a legitimate subject
3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr
essi nals
and ther  rkers meet reas nably regulat ry standards, n such deprivati n

pr perty exists. ( 3r m ti n and anagement v. CA)
  vi lati n
pr perty rights, the state can regulate entry int business as
l ng as it is reas nable.
- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
" rres)
1.m Whether by his c nduct, the individual has exhibited an expectati n

privacy.
2.m Whether s ciety deems this expectati n reas nable.
 A statute must satis
act rily sh  the presence
c mpelling state interest
and that the la, rule, regulati n is narr ly dran t preclude abuses.

1*%$# ! */+%&%#. "he absence
publicati n is
atal as held in
"anada v. "uvera. gven i
a   
©
 
is internal in nature, i
its
e

ects reach ut t pe ple ther than its empl yees, then it must be
published. (3ilipinas Ka v. CA)
 All statutes, including th se
l cal applicati n, and private las must be
published as a c nditi n
r their e

ectivity. Als c vered are 3D¶s, gO¶s and
administrative rules and regulati ns in s
ar as they implement existing la
pursuant t a valid delegati n. Whether r n t the circular addresses a small
gr up r n t, the
act that it is an administrative circular hich en
rces las,
makes publicati n imperative. (3H9PSA v. Secretary
Pab r)
*/+%& !!%& is n t a pr perty right but a statut ry right. C ngress may
pr vide
r requirements and limits t public

ice.
  yalties: taking
pr perty ith ut just c mpensati n.

*#%&# . "he p ssessi n

irearms, as ell as a gun license permitting
the carrying

irearms, is nly a privilege and O" a right. "he regulati n


irearms
all ithin the p lice p er
the State, as it regulates its use and
pr tecti n
r the public sa
ety and el
are
the general s ciety. (Chavez v.
 mul )
# %# . are n t c nsidered a gratuity. "hey are delayed c mpensati n
hich vests the recipient ith a legitimate pr perty interest. (ÚS9S v.
 ntesclar s)
%$# #!% . etirement bene
its
military pers nnel are
gratuit us in character, as such they nly gave
uture bene
its. 9t is nly hen
the empl yee retires and bec mes eligible, that he acquires a vested right t
said bene
its. (3arren v. COA)
 3 lice 3 er, in the interest
Úeneral Wel
are and 3ublic Health, AY
impair c ntracts. (Beltran v. Sec.
Health)
 $# . are like ther c ntracts, subject t the verriding demands,
needs and interests
the greater number as the State may determine in the
exercise
its p lice p er. ( BÃHA9 v. City ay r
3aranaque)
1A 2010
m
0m
 3 lice p er, need n t pr ve exact scienti
ic c nclusiveness r research, as
l ng as the exercise
hich remains reas nable and n t unduly ppressive.
(iras l v. D3WH)
&*%' !
#*. While the right
 rkers t security
tenure is
guaranteed by the C nstituti n, its exercise may be reas nably regulated
pursuant t the p lice p er
the State t sa
eguard health, m rals, peace,
educati n, rder, sa
ety, and the general el
are
the pe ple.
1*+&%#!
m Úuarantees legal equality
all be
re the la
m gqual pr tecti n clause can als be vi lated n t by denial
equality but
by creating a system that can
ster inequality (3e ple v. aera)
m "he guaranty
gqual 3r tecti n is n t vi lated by a legislati n based n
reas nable classi
icati n.
&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SÚPg
1.m 9t must rest n */ #%+ distincti ns
2.m 9t must be ($# t the purp se
the la
3.m 9t must 

+%$%) t existing c nditi ns nly
4.m 9t must apply 1*++' t all members
the same class
 it d es n t demand abs lute equality am ng residents, it merely requires
that all pers ns similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances; b th as t privileges c n
erred and liabilities en
rced. ("iu v.
CA)
¯+%# 
"he di

erence in status beteen citizens and aliens c nstitute a basis
r
reas nable classi
icati n in the exercise
p lice p er. SC held that the
disputed la as enacted t remedy an actual threat and danger t nat¶l
 &% % . Dismissal
a case against ne de
endant must apply t
ec n my p sed by alien d minance and c ntr l
the retail trade, and  uld

ree citizens
r m such d minance and c ntr l. (9ch ng v. Hernandez)
"he purp se
the la is t all  the emergence
y unger bl d in l cal
g vernments, s the la as declared valid. (Dumla v. COgPgC)
#). is a valid classi
icati n, the physical and psych l gical di

erences
make the distincti n reas nably related t the valid purp se. "he pr hibiti n

 men bartenders as attributed t the danger present in their  rkplace,
ith the bject
pr tecting the m rals
 men. (Ú esart v. Cleary)

0%#( )%##&. "ax sh uld n t be passed
r speci
ic c mpanies/entities
nly,
r it ill n t be applicable t
uture c nditi ns, and ill serve t exclude
any subsequently established sugar central,
the same class as plainti

,

r m the c verage
the tax. (Orm c Sugar C . v. "reasurer
Orm c)
 9t is inherent in the p er t tax that a state be
ree t select the subjects

taxati n, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities hich result
r m a
singling ut
ne particular class
r taxati n, r exempti n in
ringe n
c nstituti nal limitati n. (Sis n r. v. Ancheta)
 Special grant
tax exempti n in
av r
the arc z heirs ill c nstitute
class legislati n. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ)
$/+%#(.ust h  3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3AÚCO is
vi lative
equal pr tecti n is n t clearly explained. "he mere
act that s me
gambling activities like c ck
ighting (3D 449) h rseracing (A 306, amended
by A 983), seepstakes, l ttery and races (A 1169 amended by B3 42) are
legalized under certain c nditi ns, hile thers are pr hibited, d es n t render
these las, speci
ically 3D 1869, unc nstituti nal.
 "he g3C d es n t mean that all things called by the same name sh uld be
treated the same ay. (Basc v. 3AÚCO)
thers i
n reas nable distincti ns exist. (epublic v. Sandiganbayan)
 "he 350.00
ee is unreas nable because it
ails t c nsider valid substantial
di

erences in situati n am ng individual aliens h are required t pay it.
"he same am unt is c llected
r m every alien, hether he is a casual r
permanent empl yee, parttime r
ulltime, an empl yee r an executive.
(aillegas v. Hui Chi ng 3a H )
"he term ³n nresident alien´ and its bverse ³resident alien,´ must be given
their technical c nn tati n under ur la n immigrati n. "here lies
substantial di

erences beteen the t . (Úeneral illing C rp. v. " rres)
r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
$+ .9nequalities hich result
r m the singling ut
ne
particular class
r tax exempti n in
ringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. "here is
a substantial distincti n beteen the h meless p r and the h meless less
p r because the 2nd gr up can a

rd t rent h uses in the meantime.
(" lentin v. Sec.
Ãinance)
 3 lice p er inv lves the duty t pr vide
r the real needs
the pe ple.
"he Burial Assistance 3r gram is a relie

pauperism. 3aupers may be
reas nably classi
ied. Di

erent gr ups may receive varying treatment.
Statutes have been passed giving rights and bene
its t the disabled and the
less
rtunate. (Binay v. D ming )
1A 2010
m
* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 O

icers are treated di

erently
r m
ther pers ns charged criminally r administratively ins
ar as preventive
suspensi n is c ncerned. 3 licemen carry eap ns and the badge
la hich
can be used t harass r intimidate itnesses against them, and there
re
needs t be suspended in rder t pr tect itnesses against him. (Himagan v.
3e ple)
#&%  .a
ranchise is n t in the strict sense a simple c ntract but rather
it is m re imp rtantly, a mere privilege especially in matters hich are ithin
the g vernment's p er t regulate and even pr hibit thr ugh the exercise

the p lice p er. "hus, a gambling
ranchise is alays subject t the exercise

p lice p er
r the public el
are. (Pim v. 3acquing)
 place assigned t them. "he purp se
the la is t break an imp rtant link in
 "here is substantial distincti n beteen landbased and seabased Ãilipin
verseas  rkers in terms
, am ng ther things,  rk envir nment, sa
ety,
dangers and risks t li
e and limb, and accessibility t s cial, civic, and
spiritual activities. (C n
erence
aritime anning Agencies v. 3OgA)
 9t is gr ssly un
air t exempt ne similarly situated litigant
r m pr secuti n
ith ut all ing the same exempti n t the thers. "he equal pr tecti n
guarantee perates against uneven applicati n
legal n rms s that all
pers ns under similar circumstances  uld be acc rded the same treatment.
(egala v. Sandiganbayan)
 "he per
rmance
legitimate and even essential duties by public

icers
has never been an excuse t
ree a pers n validly in pris n. Ãuncti ns and
duties
the

ice are n t substantial distincti ns hich li
t the accused
r m
the class
pris ners interrupted in their
reed m and restricted in liberty

m vement. (3e ple v. al sj s)
 "here are substantial di

erences beteen big invest rs h are lured t
establish their industries in the ³secured areas´ c mpared t business
perat rs utside the area. "he
irst can give ec n mic impact that is nati nal
in sc pe, the ther, merely l cal ("iu v. CA)
same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant
rests up n the discreti n
the trial c urt. (S rian v. CA)
+&%# . incumbents running
r the same p siti n are n t c nsidered
resigned because the intenti n
the la is t all  them t c ntinue serving
their c nstituents and av id a disrupti n in the delivery
essential services.
"h se running
r di

erent p siti ns are c nsidered resigned because they are
c nsidered t have aband ned their present p siti n by their act
running

r ther p sts. (Aguinald v. COgPgC)
 "he purp se
the singling ut is t ensure the impartiality
the electi n


icers by preventing them
r m devel ping
amiliarity ith the pe ple in the
the chain
c rrupti n. With ut the c mplicity
such

icials, largescale
v ter registrati n an malies can hardly be carried ut. (De Úuzman v.
COgPgC)
"here are substantial distincti ns beteen glective and App intive O

icials:
1: elective

icials ccupy

ice by the maj rity¶s mandate ± they can nly be
rem ved under stringent circumstances; app intive

icials h ld

ice by
virtue
designati n by an app inting auth rity
2: App intive

icials are n t all ed t engage in partisan p litical activity,
hile elective

icials bvi usly may (Ãarinas v. gxecutive Secretary)
1*+'!1*+2.pers ns h  rk
r equal quali
icati ns, skill,
e

rt and resp nsibility, under similar c nditi ns, sh uld be paid equally.
Salaries sh uld n t be used as an enticement
r
reignhires, t the
prejudice
l calhires. (9S v. Quisumbing)
#+'."he death penalty la applies t all pers ns and all classes

pers ns.  particular gr up r classes
pers ns are identi
ied by the la
against h m the death penalty shall be exclusively imp sed. (3e ple v.
ercad )


  5
 

  
 
  
 

+&$$*#%&%# ."a and radi are m re pervasive and persuasive; 

  

 ¯
 ¯ 


 ¯¯
  ¯ ¯

print media d es n t really reach the hardt reach places in the 3hilippines ¯   ¯ 6   ¯
  ¯
  ¯
 ¯
hile access t "a and radi c ntent is practically simultane us ("gPgBA3 v.    ¯   ¯ ¯   ¯  ¯ ¯
 
COgPgC) ¯ ¯

 ¯ 
 ¯    7
    ¯
 "he payment
the civil liability is n t made a c nditi n   t ¯ 
  
 3  ¯ 
 - ¯

 
pr bati n. 3etiti ner¶s applicati n
r pr bati n had already been granted. 7¯3¯
    ¯
  ¯

 3¯
 

  3¯

Satis
acti n
his civil liability as n t made a requirement be
re he c uld ¯
 
    3¯   ¯ ¯
¯ 
avail
pr bati n, but as a c nditi n
r his c ntinued enj yment
the   
 ¯
  ¯  ¯
    

 
 6

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

 private individuals. (3e ple v. arti)

 3
3 ¯  **remedy may be
und in the Civil C de and in the 3C.
 
0&,%#9
search is reas nable & ± an examinati n
a man¶s h use r ther buildings r premises, r

his pers n r his vehicle ith a vie t the disc very
c ntraband, illicit
        and st len pr perty r s me evidence
guilt t be used in pr secuti n
a
 criminal acti n
r s me crime r

ense charged.
%"+%) %*"+%) %* #*
# # #8/' ,*,  #%  &: &;<
  %"  A ³ utine Checkp int´ d es n t intrude n a m t rists right t ³
ree passage
equirements: 1) 9ncidental t #)%"%)*+9 1) Subp ena ith ut interrupti n,´ but it inv lves nly a brie
detenti n
travelers during
1) 9ssued up n la
ul arrest  duces tecum hich the vehicle¶s ccupants are required t anser a brie
questi n r t .
pr bable cause (Sec 12, ule 1) SO3 (3e ple 2) Administrative As l ng as the vehicle is neither searched, n r its ccupants subjected t a
2) 3ers nally 126
ules
vs. arti) 9nspecti n b dy search, and the inspecti n
the vehicle is limited t a visual search,
examined by the C urt) 2) Security Check r utine checks cann t be regarded as vi lative
an individuals¶ right against
judge 2) 3lain vie (3e ple vs unreas nable search. (aalm nte v. Úen. De ailla)
3) gxamined 3)  ving vehicle B ngcaraan)
under ath and 4) C nsented  #)$*(
 %#(."he perative c ncepts in the mandat ry drug
a

irmati n arrantless  testing are "rand mness" and "suspici nless." 9n the case
pers ns charged
4) 3articularly search ith a crime be
re the pr secut r's

ice, a mandat ry drug testing can
describing the 5) Cust ms never be rand m r suspici nless.
place t be searches
searched and the 6) St p and Ãrisk When pers ns suspected
c mmitting a crime are charged, they are singled
pers ns r things 7) gxigent and ut and are impleaded against their ill. "he pers ns thus charged, by the
t be seized gmergency bare
act
being haled be
re the pr secut r's

ice and peaceably
(Sec. 2 Art. 999, circumstances submitting themselves t drug testing, i
that be the case, d n t necessarily
y v. B9) 8) suspici nless c nsent t the pr cedure, let al ne aive their right t privacy.
5) arrant must drug tests
n t be
r m re " imp se mandat ry drug testing n the accused is a blatant attempt t
than ne

ense harness a medical test as a t l
r criminal pr secuti n, c ntrary t the
(evised OC) stated bjectives
A 9165. Drug testing in this case  uld vi late a
 pers ns' right t privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. 999
the C nstituti n.
 W rse still, the accused pers ns are veritably
rced t incriminate
 themselves. (SS v. DDB)
 
 %=*± as l ng as the pr perty is in c ntr l
the pers n arrested, even i

¯
)$!$ &#)¯  he d es n t p ssess nership, such may be seized (Burg s v. Chie

Sta

)
*,   St pping a pers n, even th ugh an arrest is n t c mmenced, is a ³seizure´
(a) " pr tect the privacy and sanctity
his pers n, pr perty and h use ("erry v. Ohi )
(b) " guarantee against unla
ul arrest and ther
rms
restraint. ¯  ± t deprive a pers n
his liberty by legal auth rity. 9t is he taking

a pers n int cust dy in rder that he may be b und t anser
r the
Secti n 2 is pr tecti n against unla
ul searches by 
  


c mmissi n
an

ense.
  and d es n t pr tect citizens
r m unla
ul searches and seizures by
9n arrest cases there must be:

  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

1.m pr bable cause that a crime has been c mmitted

2.m and that the pers n t be arrested c mmitted it,
*Which
c urse can exist ith ut any sh ing that evidence
the
by the
crime ill be
und at premises under that pers n's c ntr l. (Webb v.
De Pe n)

 
and cann t be availed
by
& # ± an rder in riting issued in the name
the epublic
signed by a judged and directed t a peace

icer c mmanding him t search
As t Assailing the 9llegality
a Seizure:
9t is ell settled that the legality
a seizure can be c ntested 
party h se rights have been impaired thereby, and that the bjecti n t an
unla
ul search and seizure is 
third parties. (St nehill v. Di kn )
"he right t bject t the admissi n
said papers in evidence bel ngs

r pers nal pr perty described therein and bring it be
re the c urt.
t the c rp rati ns, t h m the seized e

ects bel ng, and may
9n search cases, t c nclusi ns must be supp rted by substantial evidence:
1.m that the items s ught are in
act seizable by virtue
being
c nnected ith criminal activity, and
2.m that the items ill be
und in the place t be searched. 9t is n t als
necessary that a particular pers n be implicated. (Webb v. De Pe n)

n t be inv ked by the c rp rate

icers in pr ceedings against them in their
individual capacity. (St nehill v. Di kn )
As t 9llegally Obtained gvidence:
As t aAP9D legal items that have been illegally seized, it sh uld be returned
t the ners. But hen illegal items such as unlicensed
irearms r drugs are
 r in cust dy
la. "hey are
A search arrant may be issued
r the search and seizure
:
1.m pr perty subject
the

ense
2.m pr perty st len r embezzled and pr ceeds/
ruits
the

ense
3.m pr perty used r intended t be used as the mans
c mmitting an


ense
Secti n 2, ule 126
the ules
C urt, d es n t require that the pr perty
t be seized sh uld be ned by the pers n against h m the search arrant
is directed. 9t may r may n t be ned by him. 9n
act, under subsecti n [b]
illegally btained, it is kept in  

inadmissible as evidence in c urt, but since they are pr hibited items under
la, the pers n h as in cust dy
such as n t the legal ner, and the
items must be c n
iscated by la.

#!¯ ± a ritten rder made n behal

the state and is based
up n a c mplaint issued pursuant t a statute r rule and hich c mmand la
en
rcement t arrest a pers n and bring him be
re a c urt.
¯ ¯ ¯
 ¯ ¯

¯ 



the ab vequ ted Secti n 2, ne
the pr perties that may be seized is "he applicant must sh : "he applicant must sh ´
st len pr perty. ecessarily, st len pr perty must be ned by ne ther 1.)m "hat the items s ught are in 1.)m 3r bable cause that an
than the pers n in h se p ssessi n it may be at the time
the search and
act seizable by virtue


ense has been c mmitted.
seizure. Onership, there
re, is
n c nsequence, and it is su

icient that being c nnected ith 2.)m "hat the pers n t be
the pers n against h m the arrant is directed has c ntr l r p ssessi n
criminal activity; and arrested c mmitted it.
the pr perty s ught t be seized. (Burg s Sr. v. Chie

Sta

) 2.)m "hat the items ill be
und
in the place t be searched.
3artially 9nvalid Warrant "he judge must c nduct a pers nal, "he judge need n t c nduct a
 pr visi n
la exists hich requires that a arrant, partially de
ective in searching examinati n
the pers nal examinati n
the applicant
speci
ying s me items s ught t be seized yet particular ith respect t the applicant and his itnesses. and itnesses. He may rely n the
ther items, sh uld be nulli
ied as a h le. (icr s
t v. axic rp) a

idavits
the itnesses and the
 9n cases here a di

erent name is inserted as the ner
a pr perty t be rec mmendati n
the pr secut r.
searched, it is nly a harmless de
ect, as l ng as it is nly a search
the 3rescripti n: 10 days 3rescripti n: until served.
premises and n t
pers ns. 

 When a judge issues alm st exactly the same arrant as the ld ne,  9

r s me reas n, a search as n t c mpleted n the
irst day it as
herein nly the municipality r number
the address is changed, the ld undertaken, such as the v luptu usness
the material t be seized, the
arrant is deemed rev ked by the ne arrant, and it is presumed that the search n the 2nd day is deemed a c ntinuati n
the riginal search. "he
ne arrant is issued in rder t c rrect s me de
ect in the ld arrant.

ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
search may be per
rmed any day ithin the 10day prescriptive peri d.
(ustang Pumber)
9t is nly the udge h may issue arrants
search and arrest. ay rs may
n t exercise this p er, n r may it be d ne by a mere pr secuting b dy. "he
ne excepti n t this rule is the dep rtati n
illegal and undesirable aliens,
hich arrest may be issued r rdered by the 3resident r the C mmissi n

9mmigrati n. (Salazar v. Achac s )
C mmissi ner
9mmigrati n cann t issue arrants
arrest in aid merely

his investigat ry p er. H ever, he may rder the arrest
an alien in rder


  




c nnecti n ith the

ense are in the place s ught t be searched.
9t als demands that ³n less than pers nal kn ledge by the
c mplainant r his itnesses
the
acts up n the issuance
a
search arrant may be justi
ied. (20th Century à x
ilm C rp. v. CA,
Burg s Sr. v. Chie

Sta

, C rr v. Pising; riginally
r m Henry v.
S 1959)
 3r bable Cause need n t be based n clear and c nvincing evidence
guilt,
neither n evidence establishing guilt bey nd reas nable d ubt, and de
initely
n t n evidence establishing abs lute certainty
guilt. Be
re issuing
arrants
arrest, judges merely determine
 
t carry ut a dep rtati n rder that has already bec me
inal. (B ard
  


guilt
an accused. 9n d ing s , judges d n t c nduct a 

C mmissi ners v. Dela  sa) hearing t determine the existence
pr bable cause. "hey just
 


 
the initial determinati n
the pr secut r
inding a pr bable cause t
An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and
detached and must be capable
determining hether pr bable cause exists.

1*% % !+%)#
A search arrant must c n
rm strictly t the requirements
the
reg ing
c nstituti nal and statut ry pr visi ns. "hese requirements are:
(1) the arrant must be issued up n pr bable cause;
(2) the pr bable cause must be determined by the judge himsel
and n t by
the applicant r any ther pers n;
(3) in the determinati n
pr bable cause, the judge must examine, under
ath r a

irmati n, the c mplainant and such itnesses as the latter may
pr duce; and
(4) the arrant issued must particularly describe the place t be searched and
pers ns r things t be seized. ( y v. B9)

9//+*  ± such reas ns, supp rted by
acts and circumstances, as
ill arrant a cauti us man in the belie
that his acti n and the means taken
in pr secuting it, are legally just and pr per. Dg"g9gD BY "Hg ÃAC"S OÃ
gACH CASg.
 9t must be pr bable cause
s mething speci
ic (St nehill vs. Dl kn )
 9t must be de
ined 9n relati n t the acti n hich 9t justi
ies
 ere c nclusi ns
la d n t establish pr bable cause (C rr vs. Pising)
(Burg s vs. Chie

Sta

)
›m 3r bable cause
r an arrest ±
acts and circumstances hich  uld
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an


ense has been c mmitted by the pers n s ught t be arrested.

›m 3r bable cause
r a search ±
acts and circumstances hich  uld
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an


ense has been c mmitted and that the bjects s ught in
 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
see i
it is supp rted by   
 . [O"g: need n t p int t a
speci
ic

ense] (Webb v. De Pe n)
"he testim nies
the t itnesses, c upled ith the bject and
d cumentary evidence they presented, are su

icient t establish the existence

pr bable cause. "he determinati n
pr bable cause d es n t call
r the
applicati n
rules and standards
pr
that a judgment
c nvicti n
requires a
ter trial n the merits. (icr s
t v. axic rp)
³3r bable cause´ is c ncerned ith pr bability, n t abs lute r even m ral
certainty. "he pr secuti n need n t present at this stage pr
bey nd
reas nable d ubt. "he standards
judgment are that
reas nably prudent
man, n t the exacting calibrati ns
a judge a
ter a
ullbl n trial. (icr s
t
v. axic rp)
à r purp ses
issuing a arrant, nly a judge can determine pr bable cause.
à r purp ses

iling an in
rmati n, the pr secuti n determines pr bable
cause. Determinati n
pr bable cause during a preliminary investigati n is
an executive
uncti n. (3e ple v. CA)
Su

iciency
A

idavit
When the A

idavit
the applicant
the c mplaint c ntains su

icient
acts
ithin his pers nal and direct kn ledge, it is su

icient i
the judge is satis
ied
that there exist pr bable cause; hen the applicant's kn ledge
the
acts is
mere hearsay, the a

idavit
ne r m re itnesses having a pers nal
kn ledge
the
act is necessary. (Alvarez v. CÃ9)
3r secut r¶s Certi
icati n
"he judge may rely up n the
iscal's certi
icati n
the existence
pr bable
cause and, n the basis there
, issue a arrant
arrest. But such
1A 2010
m
certi
icati n d es n t bind the judge. "he issuance
a arrant is n t a mere
ministerial
uncti n; it calls
r the exercise
judicial discreti n n the part

the issuing magistrate. Secti n 6, ule 112
the ules
C urt pr vide that:
9
n the
ace
the in
rmati n the judge
inds n pr bable cause, he may
disregard the
iscals certi
icati n and require the submissi n
the a

idavits

itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence
a
, #++' 0$%#  &$,+%## #) %  %#   Ã ll ing
pr bable cause. (3lacer v. aillanueva)
By itsel
the pr secut r¶s certi
icati n
pr bable cause is ine

ectual. 9t is the
rep rts, a

idavits and ther supp rting d cuments behind the pr secut r¶s
certi
icati n hich are material t assisting the judge in making his
determinati n. "he extent
the udge's pers nal examinati n
the rep rt
and its annexes depends n the circumstances
each case. "he pers nal
determinati n is vested in the udge by the C nstituti n. 9t can be as brie
r
as detailed as the circumstances
each case require(Pim Sr. v. Ãelix)
 udges must O" rely s lely n the rep rt
the pr secut r they must
evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments hich may c nsist

a

idavits, transcripts, and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the
pr secut r¶s certi
icati n ( berts v. CA)
 n the
iscal¶s rep rt r i
n the basis there
he
inds n pr bable cause he
59 #+0$%#%#!-*)(
 a

idavits
itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence
nder existing las, arrants
arrest may be issued:
(1) by the etr p litan "rial C urts (e"Cs) except th se in the ati nal
Capital egi n, unicipal "rial C urts ("Cs), and unicipal Circuit "rial
C urts (C"Cs) in cases
alling ithin their exclusive riginal jurisdicti n;
 in cases c vered by the rule n summary pr cedure here the accused
ails
t appear hen required;
 and in cases
iled ith them hich are c gnizable by the egi nal "rial
C urts ("Cs); 
# &# % * nly i
the judge is satis
ied a
ter an examinati n in
riting and under ath
the c mplainant and the itnesses, in the
rm

searching questi ns and ansers, that a pr bable cause exists and that there
is a necessity
placing the resp ndent under immediate cust dy in rder n t
t
rustrate the ends
justice.
 3r bable cause is 3gSOAPPY Dg"g9gD by the judge a
ter examinati n
under ath r a

irmati n
the c mplainant/applicant and all itnesses h
have pers nal kn ledge
the

ense under ath and in riting. (Allad v.
Di kn )
n the certi
icati n r rec mmendati n
a
(2) by the etr p litan "rial C urts in the ati nal Capital egi n (e"Cs
6
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
C) and the "Cs in cases
iled ith them a
ter appr priate preliminary
investigati ns c nducted by

icers auth rized t d s ther than judges

e"Cs, "Cs and C"Cs. 

nder these c urts, it has been held that: "he judge is # 1*%) 
Seaestablished d ctrine and pr cedure, he shall
1.m 3ers nally evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments
submitted by the
iscal regarding the existence
pr bable cause
and, n the basis there
, issue a arrant
arrest; r
2.m 9
n the basis there
he
inds n pr bable cause, he may
a.m disregard the
iscal's rep rt and require the submissi n

supp rting a

idavits
itnesses t aid him in arriving at a
c nclusi n as t the existence
pr bable cause, O
b.m pers nally examine the applicant and itnesses t
determine pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar,  berts v.
CA)
"he judge is n t required t pers nally examine the c mplainant and his
itnesses and n the basis there
issue a arrant
arrest. He may als rely
may disregard the
iscal¶s rep rt and require the submissi n
supp rting

pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar) But it may n t be delegated t a clerk
(Bache v. uiz)
What is required is  
  and n t  
   

(S liven v. udge akasiar)
**Bernas rec mmends c mparing the d ctrine
r m S liven ith the d ctrine

r m Bache and C . v. uiz
What the C nstituti n undersc res is the exclusive and pers nal resp nsibility

the issuing judge t satis
y himsel

the existence
pr bable cause.
(S liven v. udge akasiar)
"he judge must examine the c mplainant and his itnesses under ath r
a

irmati n. "his has been interpreted as requiring a pers nal and n t merely
delegated examinati n by the judge r by the pr per

icer, because the
purp se
the examinati n is t c nvince the judge r

icer himsel
and n t
any ther individual. (Bache and C . v. uiz; Alvarez v. C urt)
A judge cann t rely  
pr secut r that pr bable cause exists
r the purp se
issuing a arrant. By
itsel
, the 3r secut r¶s certi
icati n
pr bable cause is ine

ectual. "he judge
1A 2010
m
must l k at the rep rt, the a

idavits, the transcripts
sten graphic n tes (i

any) and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the 3r secut r¶s certi
icati n.
(Pim v. Ãelix)
"est
Su

iciency ± hether it had been dran in such a manner that perjury
c uld be charged i
such is untrue.
gxaminati n
c mplainant must be in the
rm
searching questi ns and
ansers in rder t determine the existence
pr bable cause. (Silva v. "C
egr s)
"he reading
the sten graphic n tes t resp ndent udge did n t c nstitute
su

icient c mpliance ith the c nstituti nal mandate
pers nal examinati n

r by that manner resp ndent udge did n t have the pp rtunity t bserve
the demean r
the c mplainant and his itness. "hese ere imp rtant in
arriving at a s und in
erence n the questi n
/n there as pr bable cause.
(Bache & C . 9nc v. uiz)
3ers nal gxaminati n
gvidence:
"he presentati n
the master tapes
the c pyrighted
ilms
r m hich the
pirated
ilms ere allegedly c pied, as necessary
r the validity
search
arrants against th se h have in their p ssessi n the pirated
ilms. "his
linkage
the c pyrighted
ilms t the pirated
ilms must be established t
satis
y the requirements
pr bable cause. ere allegati ns as t the
existence
the c pyrighted
ilms cann t serve as basis
r the issuance
a
search arrant. (20th Century à x Ãilm v. CA)
90$%#)*#) #)¯!!%$%#
 the arrant sh uld be issued, must c ntain a particular descripti n
the
Searching Questi ns:
Warrant issued ill be declared   i
the judge d es n t ask SgACH9Ú
Q gS"9OS, and merely asks curs ry questi ns that mirr r the applicati n

iled by the c mplainant r itness, such as:
Mm Questi ns that are simple ³yes´ r ³n ´ questi ns pertaining t
basic matters like identity and things t be seized, already
c ntained in the applicati n
r search arrant
iled.
Mm Questi ns that are r utinary and very br ad. (Silva v. 3residing
udge
"C
egr s Occidental)
Oath an utard pledge, given by pers n taking it, that his attestati n r
pr mise is made under immediate sense
resp nsibility t Ú d. (Alvarez vs.
CÃ9)
A

irmati n a s lemn and
rmal declarati n that an a

idavit is true, this
being substituted
r an ath in certain cases. Here, there is n inv cati n

Ú d r a supreme being.
66 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
A search arrant must n t nly be based n pr bable cause but als must be
based n an applicati n supp rted by ath
the applicant and the itnesses
he may pr duce. 9ts purp se is t c nvince the c mmitting magistrate
the
existence
pr bable cause.
"he
ailure
the itness t menti n particular individuals d es n t
necessarily pr ve that he had n pers nal kn ledge
speci
ic illegal
transacti ns
the Organizati n,
r the itness might be acquainted ith
speci
ic transacti ns, even i
the names
the individuals c ncerned ere
unkn n t him. (Central Bank v.  r
e)
"he examining judge has t take dep siti ns in riting
the c mplainant and
the itnesses he may pr duce and t attach them t the rec rd. Such ritten
dep siti n is necessary in rder that the judge may be able t pr perly
determine the existence r n nexistence
pr bable cause, and t h ld liable

r perjury the pers n giving it i
it ill be
und later that his declarati ns are

alse. (3e ple v. amaril)
-9%&*+%'! &%,%#
.A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized
hen the descripti n therein is as speci
ic as the circumstances ill rdinarily
all  and by hich the arrant

icer may be guided in making the search
and seizure. (Bache & C . v. uiz)

 Secti n 1, paragraphs 3,
Article 999
the C nstituti n, and secti n 97

Úeneral Orders,  . 58 pr vide that the !!%)"% t be presented, hich shall
serve as the basis
r determining hether pr bable cause exist and hether
place t be searched and the pers n r thing t be seized. "hese pr visi ns
are mandat ry and must be strictly c mplied. (Alvarez v. CÃ9) 9t must O" be
t general. (St nehill v. Di kn )
"he purp se and intent
this requirement is t limit the things t be seized
t nly th se particularly described in the search arrant ± t leave the


icers
the la ith n discreti n regarding hat articles they sh uld seize,
t the end that unreas nable searches and seizures, r abuses, may n t be
c mmitted. (C rr v. Pising)
3urp se r this requirement is t prevent abuse by the

icer en
rcing the
arrant by leaving him ith n discreti n as t h r hat t search r
seize. (Bernas)
1A 2010
m
9t is n t required that technical precisi n
descripti n be required,
particularly here, by the nature
the g ds t be seized, their descripti n
must be rather general, since the requirement
a technical descripti n  uld
mean that n arrant c uld issue. (3e ple v. "ee)
¯  />& 
%=) adduced in supp rt
their applicati n
r the arrant. "he c ntr lling
 9t must be speci
ic as
ar as the circumstances ill rdinarily all .
(icr s
t v. axic rp) 9t is n t required that a technical descripti n be given
because that  uld mean that O arrant c uld issue. (Alvarez v. CÃ9)
A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized
hen:
a.m the descripti n therein is as speci
ic as the circumstances ill
rdinarily all ,
b.m r hen the descripti n expresses a c nclusi n

act n t
la by
hich the arrant

icer may be guided in making the search and
seizure.
c.m r hen the things described are limited t th se, hich bear direct
relati n t the

ense
r hich the arrant is being issued. (Bache
& C . 9nc. v. uiz)
 As t hat is t be taken, n thing is le
t t the discreti n
the

icer
executing the arrant. "hus, the speci
ic pr perty t be searched
r sh uld
be s particularly described as t preclude any p ssibility
seizing any ther
pr perty. B ", the la d es n t require that the things t be seized must be
described in precise and minute detail as t leave n r m
r d ubt n the
 "he particularity
the place is essential t the issuance
search arrants
t av id the exercise
the en
rcing

icers
discreti n. "he place t be
searched as set ut in the arrant, cann t be ampli
ied r m di
ied by the


icers¶ n pers nal kn ledge
the premises, r the evidence they
subject
search arrants is the place indicated in the arrant itsel
, and n t
the place identi
ied by the p lice. (3e ple v. Ãrancisc )
"yp graphical grr r in arrant is all ed i
the descripti n
the place t be
searched can be distinguished
r m ther places, but ill n t be all ed i
it is
based n the hims r discreti n
the peace

icer.
Search
a H use 2 itnesses are required t be present in the search
the
h use, unless its la
ul ccupants are in the premises searched.

.9
in a arrant
r a search
the place there is a mistake in the identi
icati n

the ner, the arrant is n t invalidated i
it is pr perly described. (Ãrank
y v. B9)
&¯ ,+
-## 
As a (#+ *+, arrants must have a name and descripti n
the
accused. "he p lice sh uld particularly describe the place t be searched and
the pers n r things t be seized henever and herever it is
easible.
Warrants
r apprehensi n
unidenti
ied pers ns are v id, unless it c ntains
part
searching auth rities.(aallej v. CA) the best 
  p ssible that ill enable the

icer t identi
y the
accused.
 "he articles subject
the search and seizure need n t be s invariant as t
require abs lute c nc rdance beteen th se seized and th se described in the H ever, ´-# 4 # sh uld be the excepti n and n t the rule.
arrant. Substantial similarity
th se articles described as a class r species
 uld su

ice. (Y use
AlÚh ul v. CA)
/¯ ) &%,%#!$%  
. 9t is a su

icient descripti n i


icer ith the arrant can, ith reas nable
e

rt, ascertain and identi
y the place intended, and distinguish it
r m ther
places in the c mmunity.
 9n the determinati n
hether a search arrant describes the premises t
be searched ith su

icient particularity, it has been held "that the executing


icer's pri r kn ledge as t the place intended in the arrant is relevant.
"he executing

icer may l k t the a

idavit in the

icial c urt
ile t
res lve an ambiguity in the arrant as t the place t be searched." (Burg s
Sr. v. Chie

Sta

)
6Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
"he 
  must be su

icient t indicate clearly the pr per
pers n up n h m the arrant is t be served.
9t sh uld state: pers nal appearance, peculiarities, ccupati n, place

residence and ther circumstances by hich he may be identi
ied. Having the
address and the kn ing that the ne resp nsible ccupies and c ntr ls the
building is su

icient in
rmati n t acquire a search arrant. (3e ple v.
ael s )
A arrant
arrest against 50  hn D es is
the nature
a general arrant
clearly vi lative at least
the requirement
particularity
descripti n.
(3angandaman v. Casar)
r9#$* #/!$# !!# 
1A 2010
m

 A search arrant shall n t be issued but up n pr bable cause in c nnecti n "he Bill
ights rders the abs lute exclusi n
illegally btained evidence.
ith ne speci
ic

ense. (St nehill v. Di kn ) Secti n 3 explicitly states that illegally btained evidence ³shall be
inadmissible
r any purp se in any pr ceeding.´ Articles seized based n an


', !
& invalid arrant may n t be intr duced as evidence in c urt. ( lasc v. 3aň )
1.m Criminal Search ± requires pr bable cause. **"ake n te that this de
ense is purely pers nal.
Æm C nstructive Search(such as ?

  
 ) ± rder
r 
the pr ducti n
b ks and papers. p n m ti n
any party 9
&%#&%)#++!*+ 
sh ing g d cause and up n n tice t all ther parties, the c urt
may rder t pr duce and permit inspecti n and c pying r 1*%$# 
ph t graphing
d cuments n t privilege hich c ntain evidence 1.m Search as c nducted because
a valid arrest (i
arrest arrant is
material t any matter inv lved in the acti n (aterial Distribut rs v. declared illegal r invalid, the
ruit
the p is n us tree d ctrine
atividad)
excludes them
r m being admitted int evidence)
m Administrative search ± c nducted t imp se a regulati n r la. 2.m 9tem t be searched as ithin the arrestee¶s cust dy r area

3r bable cause is determined acc rding t the la being immediate c ntr l (the area ithin hich the pers n arrested c uld
implemented. 9
there is n c nsent, ne sh uld get a arrant reach
r a eap n r evidence t destr y it).
(Camara v. unicipal C urt)
3.m Search as c ntemp rane us ith arrest.
 Arrest must precede that search; the pr cess cann t be reversed (alacat
vs. CA)


¯

¯
 gxcepti n: A search substantially c ntemp rane us ith an arrest can precede
"he  PgS OÃ 3OCgD g are mere t ls designed t
acilitate the the arrest i
the p lice have pr bable cause t make the arrest at the utset

attainment
justice and that strict and rigid applicati n
rules hich  uld the search (3e ple vs. "udtud citing 68 Am.ur 2d)
result in technicalities that tend t
rustrate rather than pr m te substantial
justice must alays be av ided. (aallej v. CA) Accused as searched and arrested hile transp rting   A crime as
actually being c mmitted and he as caught 
©
 
 . "hus, a
HgCg
+%)#+ 
& #)
%=*
"hus, in the extra rdinary events here arrant is n t necessary t e

ect a
valid search r seizure, r hen the latter cann t be per
rmed except ith ut
arrant, hat c nstitutes a reas nable r unreas nable search r seizure
bec mes purely a judicial questi n, determinable
r m the uniqueness
the
circumstances inv lved, including the purp se
the search r seizure, 

search made up n his pers nal e

ects as incidental t a la
ul arrantless
arrest. (3e ple v. almstedt)
**  te: 3 sadas v. CA said that such an instance might n t
all under ³search
incidental t la
ul arrantless arrest.´
** At the time the peace

icers identi
ied themselves and apprehended the
petiti ner as he tried t
lee, they did n t kn  that he had c mmitted, r as
actually c mmitting the

ense
illegal p ssessi n

irearms and
 

 
©
  
 , the manner in hich the search and ammuniti ns. "hey just suspected that he as hiding s mething in the buri
seizure as made, the place r thing searched and the character
the bag. "hey did n t kn  hat its c ntents ere. "he said circumstances did
articles pr cured. (3e ple v. CÃ9
izal) n t justi
y an arrest ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. 3 sadas, 







  
  




 
 
 




A search arrant issued by a judge based n a 
©© 
a 3hilippine
C nstabulary

icer h 

 
 
 





"#

  
©©
 
is invalid. A search arrant must n t be issued based
n mere hearsay. "he judge must n t just rehash the statements but must
examine them cl sely and ascertain the existence
a pr bable cause. ( an
v. Ú nzales)

0&+* %#'*+
 

 
 

 
  
 
© 
©© 
  

! "
Warrantless search
the accused pers nal e

ects is valid because
the
existence
pr bable cause: the smell
marijuana that emanated
r m his
plastic bag, intelligence rep rts
a Caucasian travelling n a bus smuggling
marijuana
r m Sagada, and hen he as acting suspici usly and attempted
t
lee hen asked t present his identi
icati n papers during a r utine check

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
c nducted by ACO

icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v.
almstedt)
A arrantless search n a petiti ner perating and selling timber hen his
business permit as suspended by the Dg is valid because he had n right
t p ssess, sell r disp se
lumber pursuant t 3D 705. "he Dg is
auth rized t seize his lumber. (ustang Pumber v. CA)
59
%=*!"%)#&%#,+%#"%
1*%$# 
1) 3 
 
  based n the valid arrantless arrest in hich the
p lice are legally present in the pursuit
their

icial duty.
2) "he evidence as   
Searches and seizures ith ut arrant are valid i
made up n pr bable cause,
that is, up n a belie
reas nably arising ut
circumstances kn n t the
seizing

icer, that an aut m bile r ther vehicle c ntains that hich by la
is subject t seizure and destructi n. (Carr ll v. nited States)
When it is n t practicable t secure a arrant because the vehicle can quickly
m ve ut
the l cality r jurisdicti n in hich the arrant must be s ught,
then a search arrant is n t necessary s l ng as the seizing

icer auth rity
truly believed that there is pr bable cause. (3e ple v. CÃ9
izal, 3e ple v.
P H Wing)
"he rules g verning search and seizure
a m ving vehicle have steadily
liberalized n the basis
practicality. "his is s c nsidering that be
re a
arrant c uld be btained, the place, things and pers ns t be searched must

  by the p lice h have the right be described t the satis
acti n
the issuing judge²a requirement hich
t be there. b rders n the imp ssible in the case
smuggling e

ected by the use
a
3) "he evidence must be  

   m ving vehicle that can transp rt c ntraband
r m ne place t an ther ith
4) 3 

$©


evidence ith ut
urther search (3e ple impunity. (3e ple v. P H Wing)
vs. aaldez) (See  an vs. Ú nzales)
9t is quite true the ASAC received ne such in
rmati n several days r a
Aside
r m a search incident t a la
ul arrest, a arrantless search had been eek be
re the enc unter; but the
act that its agents
ailed t btain a
upheld in cases
m ving vehicles and the seizure
evidence in plain vie, arrant in spite
the time all ance is n t a sign that they have been remiss
as ell as the search c nducted at p lice r military checkp ints hich e in their duty. Because they lacked the necessary in
rmati n (such as the
declared are n t illegal per se, and stressed that 
  
 


exact time/place here the search sh uld be made), ASAC c uld n t have
  
©

 
© 








 

p ssibly secured a valid arrant even i
they had
reseen its c mpelling

 
$


 

 


 
©



necessity. (3e ple v. CÃ9
izal)





 
 
(Aniag v. C melec)
An 0# %" &%*# c uld nly be res rted t i
the


icers c nducting the search had reas nable r pr bable cause t believe
be
re the search that either the m t rist as a la

ender r that they
 uld
ind the instrumentality r evidence pertaining t the c mmissi n
a
crime in the vehicle t be searched. "he existence
pr bable cause justi
ying
"he prevalent circumstances
the case und ubtedly bear ut the
act that
the search in questi n as made as regards a m ving vehicle ² petiti ner's
vehicle as "
lagged d n" by the apprehending

icers up n identi
icati n.
"here
re, the p lice auth rities ere justi
ied in searching the petiti ner's
aut m bile ith ut a arrant since the situati n demanded immediate acti n.
(Asunci n v. CA)
the arrantless search is determined by the
acts
each case.  


$©


 
© 

  



 

©
 

Ãirst
all, even th ugh the p lice auth rities already identi
ied the petiti ner
 
 


  "he acti n then
the p licemen unreas nably as an alleged shabu dealer and c n
irmed the area here he allegedly as
intruded int petiti ner's privacy and the security
his pr perty. (Aniag v. plying his illegal trade, they ere uncertain as t the time he  uld sh  up
C melec) in the vicinity. Sec ndly, they ere uncertain as t the type
vehicle
petiti ner  uld be in, taking int acc unt rep rts that petiti ner used
9
&!$"%#("%&+ di

erent cars in g ing t and
r m the area. Ãinally, there as pr bable cause
"he imp rtant thing is that there as pr bable cause t c nduct the as the same p lice

icers had a previ us enc unter ith the petiti ner, h
arrantless search. (Caballes vs. CA) as then able t evade arrest.
 Or search is c nducted in excepti nal circumstances (i.e. checkp ints)
(aalm nte vs. de ailla) When the vehicle as p inted t them by their c n
idential in
rmant, ith the

6- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

in
rmati n that the ccupant there
as carrying shabu, the peratives had ³mere manicurist,´ the SC held that ³"he

icers
the la cann t be blamed
t act quickly. Otherise, they  uld again l se their subject h m they i
they act n appearances. "here as a pers n inside h
r m indicati ns
reas nably believed t be c mmitting a crime at that instance. "here  uld be as ready t accede t their request. gven rdinary c urtesy  uld preclude
n m re time
r them t secure a search them
r m inquiring t cl sely as t hy she as there.´
arrant (3e ple v. Asunci n,   


 






© 

 


 )
& . ade by a cust ms

icer r ne deputized by
1*%$# !&2,%# 
(1) gxistence
excepti nal circumstances
(2) c nducted n a
ixed area
(3) inspecti n limited t visual search
(4) ccupants n t subjected t physical r b dy search (caballes vs. CA)
Checkp ints need n t be ann unced because it  uld be impractical, and it
 uld
rearn th se h intend t vi late the ban. gven s , badges

legitimacy
checkp ints may still be in
erred
r m their
ixed l cati n and the
regularized manner in hich they are perated. (3e ple v. gscaň )
-9 ,# %" ! %( ± there must be a right hich the pers n has
kn ledge
and such had intenti nally relinquished
1*%$# !!!&%"%"!%( 
(1) 9t must appear that the right exists
(2) "he pers n inv lved had kn ledge, actual r c nstructive
the
existence
such right.
r9* $ 
cust ms. "he mere
act that a pers n in p ssessi n
an item, hich duties
assigned t it have O" been paid, justi
ies the arrantless search; the item
is c nsidered Ú vernment 3r perty because imp rt duties have n t been paid
ith prejudice t the Ú vernment.
 9mp rted g ds remain under the jurisdicti n
Bureau
Cust ms as
9mp rtati n 9s n t terminated. ("ari

and Cust ms C de). BOC acquires
exclusive jurisdicti n ver imp rted g ds,
r the purp ses
en
rcement

cust ms las,
r m the m ment the g ds are actually in its p ssessi n r
c ntr l. (3apa vs. ag )
"he right against arrantless searches is aut matically   in acc rdance
ith cust ms rules and regulati ns, hich is strictly bserved in internati nal
practice. "he search in an airp rt is made pursuant t r utine airp rt security
pr cedure, all ed under Sec. 9
A 6235 states: ³any h lder
an airline
ticket and his baggage are subject t search
r, and seizure
, pr hibited
materials r substances. 3assengers re
using the search shall n t be all ed
t b ard.´ Once searched, and
und t have illegal materials n them, a
pers n is caught 
©
 
 , hich means he r she can be la
ully
(3) Said pers n had an actual intenti n t relinquish the right. arrested ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. Cant n)
(4) 9t must be underst d t c ver nly hat is included ithin the terms

the language (aer y vs. Payague) ‰9
,#)
% 2*+

 When a pers n gives his c nsent t be searched, he aives his right against
,*, !*+
arrantless searches and seizures. (3e ple v. Pacerna) (a) the general interest
e

ective crime preventi n and detecti n and
(b) the pressing interest
sa
ety and sel
preservati n hich permit the
"he apprehending

icers even s ught the permissi n
petiti ner t search

icer t take steps t assure himsel
that the pers n is n t armed that may
the car, t hich the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu as disc vered be used against him. (alacat v. CA)
by virtue
a valid arrantless search and the petiti ner himsel

reely gave
his c nsent t said search, the pr hibited drugs
und as a result ere
' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable searches and seizures is n t
admissible in evidence. (Asunci n v. CA) vi lated hen a p lice

icer st ps a suspect n the street and searches him
ith ut pr bable cause t arrest, i
the p lice

icer has a reas nable
"he right against arrantless searches and seizures is a purely pers nal right, suspici n that the pers n has c mmitted, is c mmitting, r is ab ut t c mmit
as such, n b dy else sh uld be able t aive the right
r the accused. a crime.

**H ever in P 

  
©
  here a  man identi
ied à r their n pr tecti n, the p lice may per
rm a quick sur
ace search
the
hersel
as the i
e
the ccupant and gave c nsent t the search and pers n¶s uter cl thing
r eap ns i
they have reas nable suspici n that the
v luntarily surrendered papers
the absent ccupant but turned ut t be a pers n st pped is armed.  #/+ * ,%&%# must be based n ³speci
ic

6r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

and articulable
acts.´ in
rmal disciplinary pr cedures needed. (aer nia Sch Dist. a. Act n; B ard

gducati n v. garls: in justi
ying the reas nableness
arrantless drug tests
While pr bable cause is n t required t c nduct a "st p and
risk," it in public sch ls)
nevertheless h lds that mere suspici n r a hunch ill n t validate a "st p and

risk." A (#*%# # must exist, in light
the p lice

icer's  
$)'!#(!*+ %=*

  

  , t arrant the belie
that the pers n detained has Art 3, sec 2 pr tects n t nly th se h appear t be inn cent but als th se
eap ns c ncealed ab ut him. ("erry v. Ohi , cited in alacat v. CA) h appear t be guilty but are nevertheless presumed inn cent until the
c ntrary is pr ved. (H3 Úarments v. CA)
ule
r St p and Ãrisk: 
1.m 3 lice

icer bserves   
  9n the case at bar, the seizure as made ith ut any arrant. "he evidence
2.m   
 that the pers n is engaged in s me type
criminal activity.
m 9 ©
© as a p liceman up n appr ach.

%m akes   
 &

'm   
© 
r his n r thers sa
ety

**"he petiti ner as acting suspici usly, and hen the 93

icers
appr ached him and identi
ied themselves, the accused tried t
lee ith his
& #)
%=* :!"#*#)!",*, ;
buri bag, there as ,//+&*  that he as c ncealing s mething illegal
in the bag and it as the right and duty
the p lice

icers t inspect the
same. (3 sadas v. CA)

?9 0%(# #) $(#&' &%&*$ #& ± urgency and exigency
the
m ment dispenses the need
r arrants
@9A#A * ,%&%#+ )*( 
Sec. 36
A 9165 and its implementing rules and regulati ns (9), as
c uched, c ntain pr visi ns speci
ically directed t ards preventing a situati n
that  uld unduly embarrass the empl yees r place them under a humiliating
experience. While every

icer and empl yee in a private establishment is
under the la deemed
rearned that he r she may be a p ssible subject

a drug test, n b dy is really singled ut in advance
r drug testing. "he
rand m drug testing shall be undertaken under c nditi ns calculated t

did n t justi
y the arrantless search and seizure
the resp ndent¶s g ds.
"he petiti ners and the raiding party had en ugh time t apply
r a judicial
arrant but they did n t d s , and thus t k thus t k the risk
a suit
r
damages. "here as n pr bable cause
r the seizure. "he ant nness
the
r ng
ul seizure justi
ies the aard
exemplary damages. (H3 Úarments v.
CA)
When an rder is issued in virtue
the pr visi ns
ule 21, it pertains t a
civil pr cedure hich cann t be identi
ied r c n
used ith the unreas nable
searches pr hibited by the C nstituti n.
But in the err ne us hyp thesis that the pr ducti n and inspecti n
b ks
and d cuments
a c mpany rdered by the C urt is tantam unt t a search
arrant, the pr cedure utlined by ule 21 and
ll ed by a judge place
them  the realm
the pr hibited unreas nable searches.
9
a party in a case has interest in the b ks and d cuments in questi n, then
it means that they are material and imp rtant t the issues
the case, and
that justice ill be better served i
all the
acts pertinent t the c ntr versy
are placed be
re the trial c urt. (aterial Distribut rs v. atividad)
?

  
pr tect as much as p ssible the empl yee's privacy and dignity. "he intrusi n
int the empl yees' privacy, under A 9165, is acc mpanied by pr per
sa
eguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages
test results, and is
relatively minimal.
**"he pr bablecause standard is peculiarly related t criminal investigati ns
and may be unsuited t determining the reas nableness
administrative
searches here the Ú vernment seeks t prevent the devel pment

hazard us c nditi ns. "he American C urt has held that a arrant and
inding

pr bable cause are unnecessary in the public sch l c ntext because such
requirements  uld unduly inter
ere ith the maintenance
the si
t and
6‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
"he right against unreas nable searches and seizure guards against abuse
nly by ay
t much inde
initeness r breadth in the things required t be
³particularly described;´ i
the inquiry is ne the demanding agency
(C ngress/Admin. B dy) is auth rized by la t make and the materials
speci
ied are relevant, the gist
the pr tecti n being the requirement that
the discl sure s ught shall n t be unreas nable.
"he requirement
³pr bable cause supp rted by ath r a

irmati n,´ literally
applicable in case
a arrant, is satis
ied in case
an ³Order
r 3r ducti n
(Subp ena Duces "ecum) by the C urt¶s determinati n that the investigati n
is auth rized by C ngress
r a purp se it can rder, and that the d cuments
1A 2010
m

s ught are relevant t the inquiry. (Oklah ma 3ress v. Walling)  udge l ks 9nt the certi
icati n
(must include a

idavits)
¯



  udge pers nally examines the
3r bable cause up n the basis
hich arrants are t be issued
r area rec rds
c de en
rcement inspecti ns is n t dependent n the inspect rs belie
that a udge is n t b und bythe Ãiscal's
particular delling vi lates the elements
the c de, but n the determinati n.
reas nableness
the en
rcement agency¶s appraisal
c nditi ns in the area 
as a h le. 9n n nemergency situati ns, a pers n has the right t insist that 
the inspect rs btain a search arrant. (Camara v. unicipal C urt) +%)#+ ¯ 
#
+(#+%&
 An

ense is c mmitted in the presence r ithin the vie
an

icer,
hen the

icer SggS the

ense, alth ugh at a distance, r HgAS the

 3
3¯ 

 disturbances created thereby and 3OCggDgD A" OCg t the scene there

 ( S vs. Sam nte)
0&,%#9
arrest is reas nable
9 9 Buybust perati n/ gntrapment perati ns ± ©
 


%# %*# C ntinuing crime ± ©
 


 m aalidity
arrest may be challenged be
re he enters his plea. "he
equirements:
(1) 9ssued up n pr bable cause
(2) 3ers nally examined by the judge
(3) gxamined under ath and
a

irmati n
(4) 3articularly describing the place
t be searched and the pers ns r
things t be seized. (Secti n 2,
Article999)
(5) arrant must n t be
r m re


acts 9ndicating that the
than ne

ense (evised ules

C urt)
 Ãiscal (judge pers nally
investigates)
 unicipal trial c urt
 unicipal circuit trial c urt
etr p litan circuit c urt (n nC)
With Ãiscal, (judge l ks int
certi
icati n and examines the
rec rds)
3r cess:
 Ãiscal makes a determinati n

pr bable cause (called "certi
icati n")
6  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
ule 113, Sec 5 ules
C urt:
(a) When in his presence, the pers n
t bearrested has c mmitted, 9s
actually c mmitting, r attemptingt
c mmit an

ense (in
lagrante
delict );
(b) When an

ense has in
act been
c mmitted and he has 

 
pers n t bearrested has c mmitted
it;
(c) When the pers n t be arrested is
a pris ner h hasescaped
r m a
penal establishment r place here
he is:  Serving
inal judgment
r
 "emp rarily c n
ined hile case
ispending, r
 gscaped hile being trans
erred

r m nec n
inement t an ther.
accused may m ve t quash the in
rmati n be
re arraignment.
#%#*%#( !!#  . Subversi n being a c ntinuing

ense, the arrest

the accused ith ut a arrant is justi
ied as it can be said that he as
c mmitting an

ense hen arrested. "he crimes
rebelli n, subversi n,
c nspiracy r pr p sal t c mmit such crimes in
urtherance there
r in
c nnecti n thereith c nstitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature
c ntinuing crimes. AS such, there is n need
r a arrant in rder
t make an arrest
r th se c mmitting such crimes. ( mil v. am s)
 "he C urt d es n t believe that the arrantless arrest
Ú
alls ithin the
terms
la
ul arrantless arrest
Sec. 5(a): ³When 9 H9S 3gSgCg, the
pers n t be arrested has c mmitted, is actually c mmitting, r is attempting
t c mmit an

ense.´ His arrest t k place 6 days a
ter the sh ting. either
c uld the arrest be reas nably regarded as e

ected ³When in
act just been
c mmitted.´  re ver 

   d es O" apply because urder is O"
a c ntinuing crime. (Ú v. CA)
 3ar. (a) requires that the pers n be arrested: (1) a
ter he has c mmitted r
hile he is actually c mmitting r at least attempting t c mmit an

ense,
(2) in the presence
the arresting

icer.
"hese requirements have n t been established in the case at bar. At the time

the arrest, accusedappellant as merely ³l king
r m side t side´ and
³h lding his abd men,´ acc rding t the arresting

icers themselves. "here
as apparently n

ense that had just been c mmitted, r as being
1A 2010
m
actually c mmitted r at least being attempted in their presence. With ut the
evidence
the
irearm taken
r m accused at the time
his illegal arrest the
pr secuti n l st its m st imp rtant exhibit and must there
re
ail. (3e ple v.
eng te)
*%!% #* 
&%##)
 *+
 #+B#+)(
.One
the C nstituti nal requirements
r a valid search arrant r arrant

arrest is that it must be based n pr bable cause. "he existence
pr bable
cause justi
ies the arrest and seizure ith ut arrant. "his c nstitutes
³pers nal kn ledge´ under ule 113
the ules
Criminal 3r cedure.
"hat petiti ners ere n t ³caught in the act´ d es n t make the arrest illegal.
3etiti ners ere
und ith y ung b ys in their respective r ms, in s me
cases naked. nder the circumstances, the C9D agents had reas nable
gr unds t believe that petiti ners had c mmitted ped philia. (Harvey v.
De
ens rSantiag )
 9n the case at bar, p lice bserved during their surveillance that the
petiti ner, having red eyes and  bbling, as he alked near the Kal kan City
Cemetery, hich acc rding t their in
rmati n as a hang ut
drug addicts.
Acc rding t their experience, this suspici us behavi r as characteristic

drug addicts n a ³high.´ "he p lice there
re had reas n t investigate him.
"hey appr ached the petiti ner, identi
ied themselves as p lice, and asked
hat he as h lding. When he resisted they asked him again. 9t as nly then
hen he all ed the examinati n
his allet here the alleged marijuana
as
und.

9llegality
arrest may be cured hen accused v luntarily submitted t
the jurisdicti n
the c urt by pleading n t guilty  
& 
the evidence. C nsequently, testim nies
the arresting

icers as t the
illegality
his arrest. (3e ple vs. gsc rdial)
 3etiti ner e

ectively aived the inadmissibility
evidence illegally btained
hen he
ailed t raise the issue during trial. 9ssues n t raised during trial
cann t be pleaded
r the
irst time n appeal. (analili v. CA)

 
  33¯
  ¯  
 
arraignment. Ú as persistent n his right t preliminary investigati n
BgÃOg his arraignment (Ú v. CA)

 "he arrest as d ne hile accused as simply descending the gangplank

a ship, ith n utard indicati n that called
r his arrest. He is O"
c mmitting a crime, n r ab ut t d s , n r just c mmitted ne. "here
re
this d esn¶t
all under the excepti ns stated in ule 113
the ules
C urt.

"he evidence is inadmissible because the search as O" an incident
a
la
ul arrest because there as O arrant
arrest and the arrantless
arrest didn¶t
all under the excepti ns under ule 113
the ules
C urt. 9

a peace

icer has at least 2 days t pr cure a Search/Arrest arrant ith the
name, descripti n
the pers n t be arrested r the place t be searched, he
cann t just make a arrantless arrest r search. (3e ple v. Amminudin)
 "he accused as arrested n the s le basis
in
rmati n
r m a verbal
rep rt, hich d es n t
all under the excepti ns stated in ules 113. "here is
O such pers nal kn ledge in this case. "he verbal rep rt led the auth rities
t suspect that the accused had c mmitted a crime. "hey ere still
ishing
r
evidence
a crime n t yet ascertained. "he subsequent rec very
the
subject
irearm n the basis
in
rmati n
r m the lips
a
rightened i
e
cann t make the arrest la
ul.
9
an arrest ith ut a arrant is unla
ul at the time it as made, generally
n thing that happened r as disc vered a
terards can make it la
ul. "he

ruit
a p is n us tree is necessarily als tainted. "he C nstituti n itsel

mandates that any evidence btained in vi lati n
the right is inadmissible in
admissi ns made by the appellant cann t be used against him. (3e ple v.
Burg s)


89  ¯
¯ 
!!&! /%+. 9
ne p sts bail, ne is  
r m questi ning de
ects
 ¯7
 ¯
  

 
 
ne¶s arrest (aelasc v. CA) 
¯

     

 
¯
 
 
¯
 "he
iling
the petiti ners
a petiti n t be released n bail sh uld be 859 ¯  
¯   ¯
 


 

c nsidered as a aiver
any irregularity attending their arrest and    

 
¯¯3


 ¯ 

them
r m questi ning its validity. (Harvey v. De
ens rSantiag ) ¯ 

 "he rule is that the right t preliminary investigati n is aived OPY hen 0&,%# 
the accused
ails t inv ke it be
re r at the time
entering a plea at the 1. Pa
ul rder
the C urt

6ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
2. When 3ublic Sa
ety r Order requires it as prescribed by la.
¯0&+* %#' *+
m Bars admissi n
illegally btained evidence.
estraint against unla
ul searches and seizures applies nly against the
g vernment but n t n private individuals. 9
the evidence s ught t be
excluded as primarily disc vered and btained by a private pers n, acting in
a private capacity and ith ut participati n/interventi n
State auth rities,
then the liberties guaranteed by the C nstituti n cann t be inv ked against
the State.
"est:
1.m gvidence primarily disc vered and btained by private pers n
(subsequent veri
icati n
evidence by State auth rities up n
request
private individual is all ed).
*%#!%#(%#(##)%"%)*+
2.m 3rivate pers n acted in private capacity.
3.m  interventi n and participati n by the State auth rities in primary
disc very.(3e ple v. arti)


"he 9ntimacies beteen husband and i
e d n t justi
y any ne
them
breaking the draers and cabinets
the ther and in ransacking them
r
telltale evidence
marital in
idelity. A pers n, by c ntracting marriage d es
n t shed his/her right t privacy as an 9ndividual. "he evidence seized by the
i
e sh uld be returned t the husband, as it as taken ith ut his kn ledge
and c nsent. (Zulueta v. CA)
 3.m 3r per sa
eguards
¯#%.%,,%#(
m A 4200 requires previ usly ritten judicial auth rizati n t be issued
up n
ul
illment
requirements
r the issuance
a arrant e

ective
r
nly 60 days.
relati nship beteen the individual and the State. 9ts c ncern is n t the
relati n beteen individuals, beteen a private individual and ther private
individuals. What the Bill
ights d es is declare s me
rbidden z nes in the
private sphere inaccessible t any p er h lder.´ ±Ãr. Bernas during the
C nstituti nal C mmissi n.
O"g: 9
the search is made up n the request
la en
rcers, a arrant
must
irst generally be secured i
it is t pass the test
c nstituti nality.
H ever, i
the search is made at the behest r the initiative
the pr priet r

a private establishment
r its n private purp ses, ith ut the
interventi n
p lice auth rities, the right against unreas nable search and
seizure cann t be inv ked,
r nly the act
the private individual and n t
the la en
rcers are inv lved.
%(%"&'%#$ !
"he right t privacy d es n t bar all incursi ns int individual privacy. "he
right merely requires that the la be narr ly
cused and a c mpelling
interest justi
ies such intrusi ns. 9ntrusi ns int the right must be
acc mpanied by pr per sa
eguards and ellde
ined standards t prevent
unc nstituti nal invasi ns. Any la r rder that invades individual privacy ill
be subjected by the udiciary t strict certainty.
equisites
r a Pa t intrude up n privacy
an 9ndividual:
1.m Pa is narr ly
cused
2.m A c mpelling interest justi
ies intrusi n
4.m Wellde
ined standards
(Ople v. " rres and K v. gDA)
¯ 
 

*#)
&5#)
%"&'!$$*#%&%#%()
+,##" %# 
%$ ."he C nstituti nal 9mmunity
r m
nauth rized tape rec rdings
teleph ne c nversati ns are n t admissible as
evidence. Absent a clear sh ing that b th parties t the teleph ne
c nversati n all ed the rec rdings
the same, the inadmissibility
the
subject tapes is mandat ry under A 4200 (AntiWiretapping Pa). "ape
rec rdings can nly be made up n la
ul rder
the C urt.
%/%%#
m  t abs lute. "he state may in
ringe such by applying
r a previ us
judicial auth rizati n in cases
nati nal security r n njudicially hen
required by public sa
ety, public rder r therise prescribed by la.
3urp se: 3r tecti n against the State. ³"he Bill
ights g verns the
6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m

++(+  %#!
unreas nable searches and seizures, being a pers nal ne, cann t be aived
by any ne except the pers n h se rights are invaded r ne h is
expressly auth rized t d s in his r her behal
.
ec rds sh  that the appellant as n t at the h use at the time his alleged
helper, all ed the auth rities t enter it. We
ind n evidence that  uld
establish the
act that Puz  rad s as indeed the appellant¶s helper, r i
she
as the helper, that the appellant had given her auth rity t pen his h use in
his absence. (3e ple v. Damas )

"he case d es n t
all ithin the excepti ns t arrantless search.
"he reas n
r searching the h use
herein petiti ners is that it as
1A 2010
m
rep rtedly being used as a hide ut and recruitment center
r rebel s ldiers.
3ermissi n as indeed granted by a. Puisa aer y t enter the h use but nly
t ascertain the presence
rebel s ldiers.
nder the circumstances it is undeniable that the p lice

icers had ample
time t pr cure a search arrant but did n t. "he articles seized, having been
c n
iscated illegally, are pr tected by the exclusi nary principle and cann t be
used as evidence against the petiti ners in the criminal acti n against them

r illegal p ssessi n

irearms. (Sps. aer y v. Payague)

  - ¯
3"%#  %,& . ncriminal pr cess, hich requires the pri r
submissi n
a
ilm t a cens r, av ids c nstituti nal in
irmity nly i
it takes
place under pr cedural sa
eguards designed t bviate the dangers
a
cens rship system.
S"ADAD ÃO CgSOSH93 "O Bg aAP9D: BÃ3
1.m "he /*)#!,"%#( that the
ilm is unpr tected expressi n must
rest n the cens r.
2.m While the State may require advance submissi n
all
ilms, in rder
t pr ceed e

ectively t bar all sh ings
unpr tected
ilms, the
¯¯

¯ 

 3
 requirement cann t be administered in a manner hich  uld lend


 7 

  

  

 
 


 an e

ect
!%#+%' t the cens r's determinati n hether a
ilm
 
 ¯¯ ¯

3 ¯ 

 
   3
 c nstitutes a pr tected expressi n because nly a judicial

   
 ¯  determinati n in an adversary pr ceeding ensures the necessary
 sensitivity t
reed m
expressi n nly a pr cedure requiring a
¯%  %# judicial determinati n su

ices t imp se a valid
inal restraint.
m O

icial g vernmental restricti ns n the press r ther
rms
3.m "he pr cedure must als assure a ,$,
inal judicial decisi n t
expressi n in advance
actual publicati n r disseminati n like licensing minimize the deterrent e

ect
an interim and p ssibly err ne us
r cens rship. denial
a license.
 Cens rship r pri r restraint is d ne by suppressing publicati n and
punishing as c ntempt
urther publicati n. 9n determining the extent
 "he B ards
evie
r  ving 3ictures and "elevisi n has the p er t
c nstituti nal pr tecti n, it has been generally, 9
n t universally c nsidered screen revie and examine all televisi n pr grams. "he exercise
religi us
that it is the chie
purp se
the guaranty

reed m
press is t prevent
reed m can be regulated by the state hen it ill bring ab ut the clear and
previ us restraints
publicati n. (ear v. innes ta) present danger
s me substantial evil, hich the state is duty b und t
prevent. H ever, there is n sh ing
the type
harm the tapes ill
0$,+  bring. 3ri r restraint n speech cann t be justi
ied by hyp thetical
ears but
1.m system
licensing administered by an executive

icer nly by the sh ing
a S BS"A"9ag and 99g" ga9P. (9C v. CA)
2.m m vie cens rship  vies are vehicle n t just
r entertainment
but als
r c mmunicati n
3.m judicial pri r restraint in the
rm
an injuncti n rder
)$! ."he press is n t exempt
r m the taxing p ers

the state, the la granted the press a privilege, they c uld take back such a
"he pri r restraint principle is n t an unbending rule but admitted excepti ns privilege any time. 9n ithdraing the privilege, the la merely subjects the
such as: WO9 press t the same tax burden t hich ther businesses have ling ag been
1.m hen a nati n is at , publicati n hich may bstruct g vernment subjected, "he aA" is n t a license tax and there
re, n t a
rm
pri r
recruitment restraint. 9t is n t a tax n the exercise i
the privilege, much less a
2.m publicati n
/ &#$%+ c nstituti nal right. (" lentin v. Sec. O
Ãinance)
3.m materials %#&%%#( t acts
vi lence t verthr  the g vernment
Als : sediti us speech, cens rship, elect ral pr cess
&"(!%$%#+
%+
Ãreed m
press and right t public in
rmati n versus rights
the accused
 *$,%#!#"+%)%'.Any system
pri r restraints
expressi n versus p er
c urt t c ntr l pr ceedings the rights
the accused must
bears a heavy presumpti n against its c nstituti nal validity. "he Ú vernment prevail, there
re, it may be pr hibited
thus carries the burden
sh ing justi
icati n
r the en
rcement
such
restraint. (Y "imes v. S)  */ 1*#*#% $#
m "here are limits t the p er
the g vernment t imp se rules r

Æ
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
regulati ns penalizing the exercise
the right

reed m
expressi n

  !
*/ 1*#*#% $# r ng
ul publicati n
the private a

airs and activities
individuals hich
#(* 
#)#&' *+ ±hen it creates a danger us tendency, hich
the state has the right t prevent. "here must be a rati nal c nnecti n
beteen the speech and evil apprehended ex. 3e ple v. 3erez (inciting t
,&#)+&+& 
sediti n)
Mm Ãear must be
r seri us evil that is seri us, imminent and high
pr bability
seri us injury t the state
 "he attack n Ú vern rÚeneral W d exceeds the b unds

ree speech
and c mm n decency. "here as a sediti us tendency, hich c uld easily
pr duce disa

ecti n am ng the pe ple. "his case is an example
the
applicati n
the danger us tendency rule here all it requires,
r speech t
be punishable is that there is a rati nal c nnecti n beteen speech and evil
apprehended. (3e ple v. 3erez)
+#) ##( *+± 9n determining hether a circumstance
 uld c nstitute clear and present danger, the c urt must inquire hether in
each case the gravity
the evil, disc unted by its impr bability, justi
ies an
invasi n

ree speech t av id the danger.
 "he questi n in every case is hether the  rds used are used in such
circumstances and are
such nature as t create a clear and present danger
that they ill bring ab ut the substantive evils that C ngress has a right t
prevent. 9t is a questi n
pr ximity and degree.
%&2 ."he p sting
decals and stickers in m bile places like
 Clear and present danger is n t dependent n the pr bability
success

attempted verthr  (Dennis v. S)
 All
rms
c mmunicati n are entitled t the br ad pr tecti n
the

reed m
expressi n clause. ecessarily, h ever, the
reed m
televisi n
and radi br adcasting is s mehat lesser in sc pe than the
reed m
acc rded t nespaper and print media due t its verhelming reach and
in
luence. "he clear and present danger test, there
re, must take the
particular circumstances
br adcast media int acc unt. "he g vernment has
a right t be pr tected against br adcasts, hich incite the listeners t
vi lently verthr  it. (gastern Br adcasting v. Dans)
+#&%#( ! #  ± it is the c urts
uncti n t balance public interest
and the
reed ms a

ected by it, and t arrive at a judgment here the
greater eight shall be placed. i.e. A4880 limiting peri d
partisan p litics
 3r ves that c nstituti nal
reed ms are n t abs lute hen there is a
substantial interest
 sually used n t t prevent evil r danger
m gxcepti ns: c ntempt libel, bscenity and sediti us speech
Æ6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
%(,%"&'  seeks t pr tect pe ple
r m unarranted intrusi ns and
are utside the sphere
legitimate public c ncern.

 3
"he COgPgC has O" been granted the right t supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practiti ners themselves
their right t expressi n during
plebiscite peri ds. "here are n candidates inv lved in a plebiscite, there
re
the evil s ught t be prevented in an electi n is n t present in a plebiscite.
(Sanidad v. COgPgC)
 CA regulate time in br adcast media and space in papers, it d es n t
vi late
reed m
expressi n. "he general el
are is a

ected here, public
interest demands that they kn  their candidates. Als it  uld perate
r
a limited peri d nly.
 gquality
pp rtunity t pr

er nesel

r public

ice is als clearly an
imp rtant value. "here
re, n presumpti n
invalidity arises ith respect t
exercises
supervis ry r regulat ry auth rity n the part
the COgPgC

r purp ses
securing equal pp rtunity am ng candidates
r p litical


ice, alth ugh such may result in  
limitati n
the rights

ree speech
and
ree press. (ati nal 3ress Club v. COgPgC)
$,%(#
cars and ther m ving vehicles d es n t endanger any substantial
g vernment interest. "here is n clear public interest threatened by such
activity s as t justi
y the curtailment
the citizen's right

ree speech and
expressi n.  re ver, the
reed m
expressi n curtailed by the questi ned
pr hibiti n is n t s much that
the candidate r the p litical party. "he
pr visi n 9s s br ad that it enc mpasses even the private Citizen's private
pr perty and the
reed m t c nvince thers t agree ith him. (Adi ng v.
COgPgC)
 What is inv lved here is simply a regulati n
time, place and manner. Any
restricti n
speech is nly incidental and it is n m re than necessary t
achieve the purp se
pr m ting equality
pp rtunity. What makes this
regulati n reas nable is that it applies nly t the electi n peri d. Ã r c ntent
neutral restricti ns such as the case at bar, the O'Brien test must be used.

 C%#  pr vides that a Ú vernment regulati n
time, space and
manner (c ntentneutral regulati n) is su

iciently justi
ied i
: WÃ 
a.m 9
it is %%# the c nstituti nal p er
the Ú vernment,
b.m 9
it !* an imp rtant r substantial g vernmental
1A 2010
m
interest
c.m 9
the g vernmental interest is *#+) t the suppressi n


ree expressi n
d.m And i
the incident  %&%# n alleged Ãirst Amendment

reed ms is n greater than is essential t the
urtherance

that interest.
 estricti ns that are c ntentneutral are n t cens rial. "he restricti n is n t
c ncerned ith the c ntent
the speech thus, it needs nly a substantial
g vernmental interest t supp rt them. (Osmena v. COgPgC)
,&
7
 
 rand m p lling
v ters as they c me ut
the b ths, and r imaginary r any act, missi n, c nditi n status r circumstance tending t
the disseminati n
their results thr ugh mass media cann t be banned by
COgPgC, they argue that it might c n
use the v ters. But it d es n t
all
under clear and present danger. "he evil t be prevented is merely
speculative. (ABS CB v. COgPgC)

 
 
± a ban n surveys published 15days be
re electi ns been ritten, kn n t s me ne ther than the pers n t h m it has

r nati nal candidates and 7days be
re electi ns
r l cal candidates is a
direct and t tal suppressi n

reed m
expressi n am unting t pri r
restraint. "he g vernmental interest s ught t be pr m ted can be achieved
by ther means. (SWS v. COgPgC)
 reputati n.
$$&%+
,&
 C mmunicati n h se s le purp se is t pr p se a c mmercial transacti n.
gx: Ads
g ds r services
 9t $* #/
alse, misleading r illegal. (Ãriedman v.  gers), r pr p se
any illegal activity (3ittsburgh 3ress v. Human elati ns C mmissi n)
 D es n t enj y the same pr tecti n as c re speech (c mmunicates p litical,

ree speech. While said signs are subject t the municipality's p lice p er,
any regulati n may be challenged n the gr und that it restricts t little
speech because its exempti ns discriminate n the basis
Sign's message r
n the gr und that it pr hibits t much pr tected speech.
 "he rdinance cann t be justi
ied as time, place manner restricti n since
handbills and nespaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes
r
imp rtant medium such as the p sters that ere pr hibited by Padue's
rdinance. (City
Padue v. Úille )

#,&)
± a pubic and malici us imputati n
a crime, vice r de
ect, real
cause the dish n r, discredit r c ntempt
a pers n r t blacken the
mem ry
ne h is dead.
glements: A39
a. "he ++(%#
a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning an ther
b. */+%&%#
the charge making the de
amat ry matter, a
ter it has
been ritten.
c. )#%'
the pers n de
amed
d. gxistence
$+%&  hen the auth r
the imputati n is pr mpted
by illill r spite and speaks n t in resp nse t duty but merely t injure
3rivileged C mmunicati ns every de
amat ry act is presumed malici us
except in the
ll ing cases:
1.m %" C mmunicati n made by any pers n t an ther in the
per
rmance
a legal, s cial r m ral duty.
2.m Ãair and true ,, made in g d
aith, ith ut c mments,
religi us and s cial ideas) remarks
any juridical, legislative, r ther

icial pr ceeding 



 ©   r
any statement, rep rt r speech delivered in
gven truth
ul and la
ul c mmercial speech may be regulated i
they
ul
ill the said pr ceedings. Or any ther & per
rmed by public

icers in the


. requirements
*) #
 SDO
1.m "he g vernmental interest s ught t be served by the regulati n
must be */ #%+
2.m "he regulati n must be )%&+')"#& the g vernment's interest
3.m "he regulati n must n t be "/) (ubin v. C rs Breing)
 "he city's nes rack p licy is neither c ntent neutral n r, "narr ly tail red."
"hus, regardless
hether r n t it leaves pen ample alternative channels

c mmunicati n, it cann t be justi
ied as a legitimate time, place, r manner
restricti n n pr tected speech. (Cincinnati v. Disc very et rk)
 "he rdinance pr hibiting the placing
signs vi lates the residents' right t
ÆÆ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
exercise
their
uncti ns.
equisites: 3AÚ
1.m "he , # h made the c mmunicati n has a legal, m ral r
s cial duty t make the c mmunicati n, r had an interest t pr tect.
2.m "he c mmunicati n is )) )t an

icer r a b ard, r superi r
having an interest in the matter, h has the p er t
urnish the
pr tecti ns s ught.
3.m Statements are made in ()!%and c mmunicated / malice.
*!%/+."he la against libel is pr tective
reputati n acc rding t
c mmunity standards and n t acc rding t
amily r pers nal standards
(Bulletin 3ublishing C rp. v.  el)
1A 2010
m
 justice. Ãreed m
expressi n itsel
can be secured nly ithin the c ntext

 Ã r liability t arise ith ut

ending the press
reed m, the test t meet is
WO the statements ere made ith C&*+$+%&C ie. kn ledge that it
as
alse r ith reckless disregard
hether it as
alse r n t (Y times v.
Sullivan).
*)#!"%#(3+%&.lies n the plainti

(B rjal v. CA)
 espaper may publish nes items relative t udicial, legislative r ther


icial pr ceedings, hich are n t
c n
idential nature, because the public is
entitled t kn  the truth ith respect t such pr ceedings, hich, being


icial and n n c n
idential, are pen t public c nsumpti n. But, t enj y
immunity, a publicati n c ntaining der gat ry in
rmati n must be n t nly
true, but, als ,
air, and. 9t must be made in g d
aith and ith ut any
c mments r remarks. Omissi ns in the nespaper rep rt, is libel by
negligence.
 9
the publisher is unaare, hen under the
acts the truth c uld have been
veri
ied, the publisher is guilty
negligence and as liable
r libel.
(3 licarpi v. anila "imes)
%/+!*/+%& !!%&%+ #)*/+%&
%(* e

ective pp rtunities
r rebuttal than public

icials and public
igures. e
 "he c nstituti nal guarantee pr hibits a public

icial
r m rec vering
damages
r a de
amat ry
alseh d relating t his

icial c nduct unless he
pr ves that the statement as made ith actual malice. (S"ADAD: Bars
media liability
r de
amati n
a public

icial absent pr
that the
de
amat ry statements ere published ith kn ledge
their
alsity r in
reckless disregard
the truth) (Y "imes v. Sullivan)
 "he pr tecti n given t all debate and c mmunicati n inv lving matters

public r general c ncern is extended ith ut regard t hether the pers ns
inv lved are
am us r an nym us, but the c mmitment t r bust debate n
public issues cann t be displaced. ( senbl m v. etr media)
 "he State's interest in pr tecting public
igures
r m em ti nal distress is n t
su

icient t deny C nstituti nal pr tecti n t speech that c uld n t reas nably
have been interpreted as stating actual
acts ab ut the public
igure inv lved.
"he rule in "9gS case is extended t 39aA"gSgC"O 3 BP9C Ã9Ú gS (e.g.
nescaster, p litical analyst etc). (Hustler agazine v. Ãalell)
0&,%#(#+*+,*/+%& !!%&%+ ,%/%)!$
&"%#($( *#+ %/,"#% &*+$+%&
 Ãreed m
speech and
expressi n is n t abs lute and that
reed m needs
n ccasi n t be adjusted t and acc mm dated ith the requirements

equally imp rtant pubic interest. One
the
undamental pubic interests is the
maintenance
the integrity and rderly
uncti ning
the administrati n

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
a
uncti ning and rderly system
dispensing justice. (9n re urad 
C rrupti n in the udiciary)
 A publicati n relating t judicial acti n in a pending case hich tends t
impede embarrass r bstruct the c urt and c nstitutes a clear and present
danger t the administrati n
justice is n t pr tected by the guarantee

press
reed m and is punishable as c ntempt.
" c nstitute &#$,, the publicati n must have been made under the
circumstance as  uld be calculated t imperil the
air and rderly
uncti ning

the judicial pr cess, n t rem tely r pr bably, but immediately, and it must
c nstitute a clear and resent danger t the administrati n
justice hich
danger must be 'seri us and substantial. (in re urad  gnrile v. Salazar)
%/+!%"#)%"%)*+  A publisher
de
amat ry
alseh ds ab ut an
individual h is neither a public

icial n r a public
igure may n t claim the
e Y rk "imes pr tecti n against liability
r de
amati n. edia de
amati n

private pers ns henever an issue
general r public interest is inv lved
 uld be un
air because private individuals characteristically have less
Y rk "imes standard is inapplicable t private individuals. (Úertz v. Welch)

%$ &%#,,+%)%#%+%,,%#-*% ,*)#&
.An allegati n is c nsidered de
amat ry 9
it ascribes t a pers n the
c mmissi n
a crime hich tends t dish n r r discredit r put him in
c ntempt, r hich tends t blacken the mem ry
ne h is dead.
"he 1*% % !+%/+ are:
a.m the allegati n
a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning
an ther;
b.m publicati n
the charge
c.m identity
the pers n de
amed; and
d.m existence
malice.
 "he 3C pr vides that i
the de
amat ry statement is made against a public


icial ith respect t the discharge
his

icial duties and
uncti ns and the
truth
the allegati n is sh n, the accused ill be entitled t an acquittal.
(aasquez v. CA)
 9t is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identi
iable alth ugh it is n t
necessary that he be named. 9t is als n t su

icient that the

ended party
rec gnized himsel
as the pers n attacked but it must be sh n that at least a
third pers n c uld identi
y him as the bject
the libel us publicati n. (B rjal
v. CA)
 "he petiti ner's act
distributing c pies
an article
r m "he 9nquirer
1A 2010
m
stating that gra
t charges ere
iled against udge Sidr cann t be c nsidered
as malici us. (aicari v. CA)
 "he c urt held that the statements emb died in the advertisement and the
penletter are pr tected by the c nstituti nal right

reed m
speech. "he
advertisement stating that a 3CÚÚ C mmissi ner c mmitted illegal and
unauth rized acts hich c nstitute gra
t and c rrupti n as held by the c urt
t be a vehicle in
rming the public and the st ckh lders
the g ings n in
the business  rld. (aland ni v. Dril n)



/ &#%' #) #)&#&' ± s mething

ensive t chastity, decency r
delicacy.
 4.m 9ndiana's requirement that the dancers ear at least pasties and a g
9n
 %#(!/ &#%', the basic guidelines
r the tier

acts must be:
39SDPa
(1) Whether the average pers n, applying c ntemp rary c mmunity standards
 uld
ind that the  rk, taken as a h le, appeals t the ,*%#%# ,
c mmunity standards standards
a speci
ic c mmunity, hich d
n t really vary
r m ther c mmunities.
(2) Whether the  rk depicts r describes, in a patently

ensive ay, sexual
c nduct ,&%!%&++')!%#) by the applicable state la, and
(3) Whether the  rk, taken as a h le +&2 seri us literary, artistic,
p litical r scienti
ic "+*. (iller v. Cali
rnia)
 Obscene material is that hich deals ith sex in a manner appealing t
prurient interest. What is seen r perceived by an artist is entitled t respect,
unless there is a sh ing that the pr duct
his talent right
ully may be
c nsidered bscene. "his ruling h ever, is limited t m ti n pictures. A less
liberal appr ach is given
r televisi n since every ne; including children have
easier access t televisi n. (Ú nzalez v. KalaKatigbak)
 " bar the exercise
the right, there must be a clear and present danger
that  uld arrant State inter
erence ± that a danger must n t nly be (1)
clear, but als (2) present, t justi
y state acti n. "here must be bjective and
&+."he
irst amendment d es n t prevent the sch l
c nvincing, n t subjective r c njectural, pr

the existence
such &+
#), #)#(, n t relying s lely n auth rity's n appraisal
hat
the public el
are, peace r sa
ety may require. And the /*)# t sh  the
existence
grace and imminent danger, and bscenity that  uld justi
y
adverse acti n lies n the  .
 What may r r auth rities must d is t secure a arrant and c nvince the
c urt r judge ith jurisdicti n that the materials s ught t be seized are
" bscene," and p se a clear and present danger
an evil substantive en ugh
Æ- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
t arrant State inter
erence and acti n. (3ita v. CA)
"he C urt
und that 9ndiana's public indecency statute is justi
ied despite its
incidental limitati ns n s me expressive activity.
Applying O'Brien:
1.m "he traditi nal p lice p er
the State is de
ined as the auth rity t
pr vide
r the public health, sa
ety and m rals. "he statute re
lected
m ral disappr val
pe ple appearing in the nude am ng strangers
in public places.
2.m "he public indecency statute
urthers a substantial g vernment
interest in pr tecting rder and m rality
3.m What 9ndiana pr hibited as n t dancing as a c mmunicative
element but simply its being d ne in the nude.
string is m dest and the bare minimum necessary t achieve the
State's purp se. (Barnes v. Úlenn "heatre)
/ &#%'# )%.Stricter rules n bscenity must be
ll ed especially
because
its pervasive quality and the interest in the pr tecti n
children.
"he pr hibiti n against cens rship denies the C mmissi n p er t edit
pr p sed pr grams in advance and t excise material c nsidered
inappr priate. HOWgag, the pr hibiti n has never been c nstrued t deny
the c mmissi n the p er t "% the c ntent
CO3Pg"gD br adcasts in
the per
rmance
its regulat ry p ers. "he c mmissi n has the right t
take n t
past pr gram c ntent hen c nsidering a licensee's reneal
applicati n. (ÃCC v. 3aci
ica à undati n)
6#%#(+(% +%#. dealing ith adult entertainment that d es n t ban adult
theaters alt gether is n t invalid being pr perly analyzed as a
rm
time,
place and manner
regulati n. "C ntentneutral time, place and manner
regulati ns are acceptable s l ng as they are designed t serve a substantial
g vernment interest an d n t unreas nably limit alternative avenues

c mmunicati n. (ent n v. 3laytime "heatre)
/ &#%'%#
district
r m disciplining students in giving

ensively led and indecent
speech at a sch l assembly. "he use
an

ensive
rm
expressi n may
n t be pr hibited t adults making a p litical p int but it d es n t
ll  that
the same latitude must be permitted t children in public sch l. (Bethel
Sch l District v. Ãraser)
 Sch ls have the auth rity t cens r i
it c uld a

ect the educati n

thers. "his case led that the cens rship in the sch ls as nly acceptable i

it ere
r "valid educati nal purp se." Stricter rules sh uld be
ll ed
r
1A 2010
m
speech in sch l because
the nature
the c mmunity that is inv lved and
the relati nship beteen sch l and parents. (Hazel d Sch l District v.
Kuhlmeier)
¯ $/+'#)%%#
## *+ (*+%#. "he g vernment has a right t regulate the
time, manner and place
assemblies t ensure the maintenance
rder and
public sa
ety.
 "he may r p ssessed reas nable discreti n t determine r speci
y the
streets
public places t be used
r the assembly in rder t secure
c nvenient use there
by ther and pr vide adequate and pr per p licing t
minimize the risk
dis rder and maintain public sa
ety and rder. (avarr v.
aillegas)
 "he primacy i
human rights,
reed m
expressi n,
peace
ul assembly
and petiti n
r redress
grievances ver pr perty rights sh uld be
sustained. " regard the dem nstrati n against the p lice

icers, n t against
the empl yer, as evidence
bad
aith, a vi lati n
the CBA and a cause
r
the dismissal
r m empl yment
the dem nstrating empl yees, stretches
unduly the c mpass
the CBA, and is a p tent means
inhibiting speech
and there
re in
licts a m ral as ell as m rtal  und n the c nstituti nal
guarantees

reeexpressi n
peace
ul assembly and petiti n. (3hilippine

  r   ¯
 9t bears stressing that suspensi n
public services, h ever temp rary, ill
inevitably derail services t the public, hich is ne
the reas ns hy the
right t strike is denied g vernment empl yees. (Ac sta v. CA)
!%#%%# ! */+%& ¯ $/+'. "he la re
ers t "rally, dem nstrati n,
march, parade, pr cessi n r any ther
rm
mass r c ncerted acti n held
in a public place." S it d es n t c ver any and all kinds
gatherings. 9t
regulates the exercise
the right t peace
ul assembly and petiti n nly t
the extent needed t av id a clear and present danger
the substantive evils
C ngress has the right t prevent. "here is, likeise, n pri r restraint, since
the c ntent
the speech is n t relevant t the regulati n.
30%$*$
+#&."he highest degree
restraint that the military, p lice
and ther peacekeeping auth rities shall bserve during a public assembly r
in the dispersal
the same.
 Applicati n
r a permit can nly be denied n the gr und
clear and
present danger t public rder, public sa
ety, public m rals r public health.
(Bayan v. grmita)


¯  3¯ 

 ¯
Bl ming ills v. 3B) 

¯
3

    


7 


 


 7 
 ¯ - 3

  

+#) ##(
 ,,+%).9n the absence
a clear and 


  ¯ 
 
 
 
 3¯
  
present danger
a substantive evil t a legitimate public interest, there as  
 
¯
   ¯     




n justi
icati n then t deny the exercise
the c nstituti nal rights

ree
¯   

 7 

    
¯
speech and peaceable assembly. 9t is settled la that as t public places, 


especially s as t parks and streets, there is
reed m
access,  r is their 
use dependent n h is the applicant
r the permit, hether an individual r 
a gr up. (eyes v. Bagatsing) ¯m #. /+% $#+* 
 either a state n r a
ederal g vernment can set up a church, pass las
ules n Assembly and 3etiti n: 9AHD hich aid ne religi n r pre
er ne religi n ver an ther, n r can it penly r
1.m #!$ the licensing auth rity
the date, the public place here secretly participate in the a

airs
any religi us rganizati ns. Creates a all
and the time hen it ill take place (private place nly c nsent

separati n beteen church and state
ner required) 
2.m ¯,,+%&%#
iled ahead
time t enable public

icial c ncerned t 
appraise hether there may be valid bjecti ns 
3.m (9ndispensable c nditi n t re
usal r m di
icati n that the C3D test  When is g vernment aid all able?
be the standard
r the decisi n reached) $#
  aid must have: Sgg
4.m 9
public auth rity believes that there is an imminent and grave (a) &*+ legislative purp se,
danger
substantial evil, applicants must be ) n the matter. (b) must have a primary !!& that neither advances n r inhibits
5.m &% %# must be transmitted at the earliest pp rtunity. religi n,

Ær Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
(c) must 
&
0& %"##(+$# ith recipient instituti n
(Pem n v. Kurtzman)
State sp ns red bible readings and prayers in public sch ls vi lates
ist and
sec nd requisites (Sch l District v. Schempp)
&%+
&+  3ar chial sch ls, in additi n t their sectarian
uncti n, Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did n t impermissibly end rse b th
per
rm the task
secular educati n. "he C urt cann t agree that all
teaching in a sectarian sch l is religi us, r that the intertining
secular
and religi us training is such that secular textb ks
urnished t students are,
in
act, instrumental in teaching religi n.
›m "he la merely makes available t all children the bene
its
a general
pr gram t lend sch lb ks
ree
charge, and the
inancial bene
it is t
parents and children, n t t sch ls. (B ard
gducati n v. Allen)
 "he entanglement in the 3ennsylvania als arises
r m the restricti ns and
surveillance necessary t ensure that teachers play a strictly n nide l gical
r le and the state supervisi n
n npublic sch l acc unting pr cedures
required t establish the c st
secular as distinguished
r m religi us
educati n. 9n additi n, the 3ennsylvania statute has the
urther de
ect

pr viding c ntinuing
inancial aid directly t the churchrelated sch ls.
nc nstituti nal due  0& %" ##(+$# /# ("4 D
+%(%#(Pem n v. Kurtzman)
 $' # /
1*(Capit l Square evie B ard v.
 "he part
the pr visi n
the Higher gducati n Ãacilities Act
1963
pr viding
r unlimited use
the buildings (
r hatever purp se) a
ter 20
years as invalidated as am unting t a c ntributi n t a religi us b dy.
("ilt n v. ichards n)
  ! */+%&
*#) E
&%+%%  "he issuance and sale
the stamps the late Ãelix anal t the culture
the 3hilippines, rather than t
c mmem rating the 9nternati nal gucharistic C ngress is aalid. "he
g vernment sh uld n t be precluded
r m pursuing valid bjectives secular in
character even i
the incidental result  uld be
av rable t a religi n r sect.
(Aglipay v. uiz)
 "he  den image as purchased in c nnecti n ith the celebrati n
the
barri
iesta h n ring the patr n saint, San aicente Ãerrer, and n t
r the
purp se

av ring any religi n n r inter
ering ith religi us matters r the
religi us belie
s
the barri residents. "he
iesta is a s ci religi us a

air.
  t every g vernmental activity hich inv lves the expenditure
public

unds and hich has s me religi us tint is vi lative
the c nstituti nal
pr visi ns regarding separati n
church and state,
reed m
 rship and
banning the use
public m ney r pr perty. (Úarcez v. gstenz )
Ɖ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
 "he &F&, hich sat n the main and m st beauti
ul part
the c untry
c urth use, a seat
g vernment, sends an unmistakable message that the
c untry supp rted and pr m ted the religi us message.
 "he $# display did n t have the pr hibited e

ect
end rsing
religi n, given its "particular physical setting". 9ts c mbined display ith a
the Christian and eish
aiths, but simply rec gnized that b th Christmas and
Hanukkah are part
the same interh liday seas n, hich has attained a
secular status in .S. s ciety. (C unty
Allegheny v. ACP )
By acc rding parents
reed m t select a sch l
their ch ice, the statute
ensures that a g vernmentpaid interpreter ill be present in a sectarian
sch l nly as a result
the private decisi n
individual parents. "he sign
language interpreter ill neither add t n r subtract
r m that envir nment,
hence the pr visi n
such assistance is n t barred by the gstablishment
Clause. (Z brest v. Catalina)
eligi us expressi n cann t vi late the gstablishment Clause here it
(1) is purely ,%" and
(2) ccurs in a traditi nal r designated ,*/+%& !*$, publicly ann unced
and pen t all n equal terms.
 "h se c nditi ns are satis
ied here, and there
re 
 ,#)# C& !$,%+
3inette)
 What sh uld be signi
icant is the principal bjective
, n t the casual
c nsequence that might
ll 
r m the exercise
the p er. "he purp se in
setting up the marker is essentially t rec gnize the distinctive c ntributi n,

c mmem rate his
unding
9glesia ni Crist . (an sca v. CA)
"here is n c mpelling justi
icati n
r the g vernment t deprive uslim
rganizati ns,
their religi us right t classi
y a pr duct as halal, even n the
premise that the health
uslim Ãilipin s can be e

ectively pr tected by
assigning t OA the exclusive p er t issue halal certi
icati ns. (9slamic
Da¶ah v. gxecutive Secretary)
 "he amendments
the c nstituti n, restatement
articles
religi n and
aband nment

aith r abjurati n alleged by appellant, having t d ith

aith, practice, d ctrine,
rm
 rship, ecclesiastical la, cust m and rule

a church and having re
erence t the p er
excluding
r m the church
th se allegedly un rthy
membership, are unquesti nably &&+ % %&+
$ hich are utside the pr vince
the civil c urts. gxc mmunicati n
1A 2010
m

members by a religi us 9nstituti n is c nclusive up n the c urts. ("aruc v.
Dela Cruz)
 danger in rder
r the state t limit the
reed m
exercise
religi n.
&&+ % %&+!!%  ne that c ncerns d ctrine creed r
rm r  rship

the church, r the ad pti n and en
rcement ithin a religi us ass ciati n

need
ul las and regulati ns
r the g vernment
the membership, and the
p er
excluding
r m such ass ciati ns th se deemed un rthy

membership.
D es the dimissal
a 7th Day Adventist inister
all ithin the purvie
the
PC? What is inv lved here is the relati nship
the Church as an empl yer
and the minister as an empl yee. 9t is purely secular, and has n relati n
hats ever ith the practice

aith,  rship, r the d ctrines
the church.
(Austria v. PC)

0&% +*   gxempti n may be acc rded t the eh vah's Witnesses ith regard t the
gmbraces t c ncepts ±
reed m t believe and
reed m t act.
a.
)$/+%"  c mpulsi n by la
the acceptance
any creed r Superintendent
Sch ls in Cebu)
the practice
any
rm
 rship
ABSOP "g ÃggDO "he g vernment cann t inquire int a pers n's religi us
pretenti ns. en may believe hat they cann t pr ve, they may n t be put t
pr ve their religi us d ctrines r belie
s.
 "he abs luteness
the
reed m t believe carries ith it the c r llary that
the g vernment, hile it may l k int the g d
aith
a pers n, cann t
inquire int a pers n's religi us pretensi ns. ( S v. Ballard)
b.
)$&# *&/+%!
ree exercise
the ch sen religi n the interest
the highest rder and th se n t therise served can
O" ABSOP "g "he m ment belie

l s ver int acti n, it bec mes subject
t g vernment regulati n
 Act must pass the clear and present danger test r the balancing
interest
test ± benev lent neutrality
m 9nv lves c mpulsi n r c erci n n the part
the state.
 "he
ree exercise
religi us belie
is superi r t c ntract rights, in case

c n
lict, the latter must yield t the
rmer. eligi us
reed m, alth ugh n t
unlimited, is a
undamental pers nal right and liberty, and has a pre
erred
p siti n in the hierarchy
values. C ntractual rights must yield t religi us

reed m. (aict rian v. glizalde  pe W rkers ni n)
 A certi
icati n exclusively
r religi us s licitati n is in the
rm
pri r
restraint r cens rship
religi n since the determinati n
hether r n t a
Æ  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
certi
icati n ill be released depends up n the secretary
public el
are.
gven i
interests be eighed, there must be a sh ing
a clear and present
(Cantell v. State
C nnecticut)
 "he c nstituti nal guaranty
the
ree exercise and enj yment
religi us
pr
essi n and  rship carries ith it the right t disseminate religi us
in
rmati n. Any restraint can nly be justi
ied n the gr unds that there is
clear and present danger
any substantive evil, hich the state has the right
t prevent.
 "he state may n t require a license
r the disseminati n
religi us
literature unless the disseminati n is d ne
r a business perati n (American
Bible S ciety v. anila)
bservance
the
lag cerem ny ut
respect
r their religi us belie
s,
h ever "bizarre" th se belie
s may seem t thers. (gbranilag v. Div.
"he Air à rce has dran the line essentially beteen religi us apparel that is
visible and that hich is n t. "he AÃs reas nably and evenhandedly regulate
dress in the interest
the military¶s perceived need
r uni
rmity. (Ú ldman
v. Weinberger)
¯$%  esp ndents have amply supp rted their claim that en
rcement

the c mpuls ry
rmal educati n requirement a
ter the eighth grade  uld
gravely endanger i
n t destr y the
ree exercise
their religi us belie
s. Only
verbalance legitimate claims t the
ree exercise
religi n. (Wisc nsin v.
Y der)
 esp ndents assured petiti ners that they have never and ill never restrict
any pers n r pers ns
r m entering and  rshipping at said chapel. "hey
maintain, h ever, that the intenti n as n t really t per
rm an act

religi us  rship but t c nduct an antig vernment dem nstrati n at a place
cl se t the very residence and

ices
the 3resident. "he reas nableness

the restricti n
entry is is designed t pr tect the lives
the 3resident and
his
amily, as ell as g vernment

icials transacting business in alacanang.
(Úerman v. Baranganan)
Ãree exercise
religi n d es n t pr hibit imp sing a generally applicable
sales and use tax n sales
religi us materials by a religi us rganizati n.
(" lentin v. Sec.
Ãinance)
1A 2010
m
S licitati n
the Samahan ng Katandaan ng "ikay
r Church en vati n
S licitati n r c ntributi n in general, hich may include c ntributi n
r
religi us purp ses, may be regulated by general la
r the pr tecti n
the
public and its citizens
r m injury and suppress
raudulent s licitati ns.
(Centen v. aillal n 3 mill s)


$%
#)) ³A la that is neutral and
general applicability need "eler n)
n t be justi
ied by a c mpelling g v interest even i
it has the incidental e

ect

burdening a particular religi us practice.´
Pas that burden religi us practice d n t have t be justi
ied by a c mpelling
g vernmental 9nterest i
they are:
(1)m #*+ and
(2)m
(#+ applicability. (Church
Pukumi Babalu Ayeh v. City

Heilaeah)
 Since the
ilm series  uld n t have been sh n during sch l h urs, n r
as it sp ns red by the sch l, and  uld have been pen t the public, there
 uld be n realistic danger that the c mmunity  uld think that the District
as end rsing religi n r any creed. (Pambs Chapel v. Sch l District)
'%#
&+$$#&$#$#% . 9t is bey nd dispute that, Amendment: BÚCDSA"
at a minimum, the C nstituti n guarantees that g vernment may n t c erce
any ne t supp rt r participate in religi n r its exercise, r therise act in
a ay hich "establishes a [state] religi n r religi us
aith, r tends t d
s ." (Pee v. Weisman)
 As here any member
a religi us c rp rati n is expelled
r m the
membership
r esp using d ctrines and teachings c ntrary t that
his
church, such an acti n is c nclusive up n civil c urts. (P ng v. Basa)
case:
ired
r use
religi us pey te, c uld n t get unempl yed
c mpensati n. aalid because the religi us clause d es n t relieve an individual

the bligati n t c mply ith a la that incidentally
rbids ( r requires) the
per
rmance
an act that his religi us belie
requires r
rbids i
the la is
n t speci
ically directed t religi us practice
+('%#*/+%& !!%& "he religi us
reed m enshrined in the Bill
ights
simply means that n public

ice may be denied t any pers n, by reas n

his religi us belie
, including his n nbelie
. When he bec mes an ecclesiastic,
he bec mes the

icial minister
his church ith distinct duties and
resp nsibilities hich may n t be alays c mpatible ith the p sture

abs lute indi

erence and impartiality t all religi us belie
s. 3HgPD (3amil v.
 "he right t the
ree exercise
religi n unquesti nably enc mpasses the
right t preach, pr selyte, and per
rm ther similar religi us
uncti ns, r, in
ther  rds, t be a minister
the type cDaniel as
und t be. nder the
clergydisquali
icati n pr visi n, cDaniel cann t exercise b th rights
simultane usly because the State has c nditi ned the exercise
ne n the
surrender
the ther. COS"9" "9OAP (cDaniel v. 3aty)
 "he
reed m t act t ne's belie
is subject t regulati n here the belie
is
translated int external acts that a

ect the public el
are. "here
re, the
religi us pr gram is n t bey nd revie by the B ard (9C v. CA)
A creed must meet - &%%  1*+%!'   +%(%# under the Ãirst
1.m "here must be /+%! %# ) r s me parallel belie
that ccupies a
central place in the believer¶s li
e.
2.m "he religi n must inv lve a $+ &) transcending individual
belie
, i.e., it cann t be purely subjective.
3.m A )$# /+ %#&%' in belie
is necessary, but the c urt must
n t inquire int the truth r reas nableness
the belie
.
4.m "here must be s me  &%%#+ % , alth ugh there is als a
vie that religi us belie
s held by a single pers n rather than being
part
the teachings
any kind
gr ups r sect are entitled t the
pr tecti n
the Ãree gxercise Clause.
"he religi us
reed m d ctrines ne can derive
r m  are:
1) 9t is incumbent up n the C urt t determine hether a certain ritual is
religi us r n t;
2) 
 
© 




©

 


 

+%(%* 
    
©
 




 

 


 
©

  

m  la shall be passed hich  uld require a pers n t pr
ess a religi n  

   

 


©
 

 
 




t quali
y in the exercise
his civil and p litical rights. 
 
© 
 
$©


© 
  


 .
*,  t discredit the p licy
pr bing int ne¶s religi us belie
s by
test aths r limiting public

ices t pers ns h pr
ess t a particular #"+# #*+%' rec gnizes the religi us nature
the Ãilipin pe ple
religi n and the elevating in
luence
religi n in s ciety; at the same time, it
 ackn ledges that the g vernment must pursue its secular g als. 9n pursuing
these g als, h ever, the g vernment might ad pt las r acti ns
general

Æü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

applicability, hich inadvertently burden religi us exercise. 9t all s these
breaches in the all
separati n t uph ld religi us liberty, hich a
ter all is
the integral purp se
the religi n clauses. (gstrada v. gscrit r)
"he per
rmance
religi us practices sh uld n t prejudice the c urts and the
public. eligi us
reed m d es n t exempt any ne
r m c mpliance ith
reas nable requirements
the la, including the civil service las. (9n re.
request
uslim gmpl yees)
the requirements prescribed in the c nstituti n relative t the right t travel
d n t apply. (arc s v. angalapus)
"he right t "ravel may be curtailed by Administrative

icers in the interest

nati nal security, public sa
ety r public heath, as may be pr vided by la.
%+ is the security given
r the release
a pers n in cust dy
the la,

  ‰
 

 ¯  ¯
 ¯

¯3
urnished by him r a b ndsman, c nditi ned up n his appearance be
re any


 3

  
   ¯
¯ 
  3¯  c urt hen s required by the C urt r the ules
C urt.
7
   ¯
  

  
 
 
¯




¯  3¯  7
 
 
 


  An accused released n bail may be rearrested ith ut the necessity
a
¯
 ¯
 
 
¯

   ¯
 ¯
 3¯ arrant i
he attempts t depart
r m the 3hilippines ith ut pri r permissi n
 ¯

¯%/'(#)/',"% %#
1.m Ãreed m t &  #) &#( #C  ,+& ! /) may be
impaired up n la
ul rder
the c urt and ithin the limits
prescribed by la.
%/'!¯/) One can search in vain
r any la, rder, r regulati n,
hich even hints at the right
the ay r
the city
anila r the chie


p lice
that city, t
rce citizens
the 3hilippine 9slands
(
these  men
despite their being in a sense lepers
s ciety are nevertheless n t chattels
but 3hilippine citizens pr tected by the same c nstituti nal guaranties as any
ther citizens
(
t change their d micile
r m anila t an ther l cality.

the C urt here the case is pending. (Silveri v. CA)
3etiti ner has p sted bail, hich the C urt has declared legally valid and
c mplete despite her absence at the time

iling. By virtue
hich, she
h lds hersel
amenable at all times t the rders and pr cesses
the c urt,
thus she may legally be pr hibited
r m leaving the c untry during the
pendency
the case. (Santiag v. aasquez)
 3etiti ner )%)#"#/ +* %( +" &*#' and the
/*)# #," that because
danger t health i
n t t her
li
e there as necessity t seek medical treatment in
reign c untries.
(arc s v. Sandiganbayan)
(aillavicenci v. Pukban)
 "he right t change ab de and travel ithin the 3hilippines, being inv ked by
petiti ner, are n t abs lute rights. 9t can be regulated by a la
ul rder such
as releasing a petiti ner n bail. (Yap v. CA)
2.m
)$  "+ b th ithin the c untry and utside may be 
impaired by administrative auth rities, such as passp rt

icers, in

++' E%(' .3r hibiti n n the use
m t rcycles in t llays is n t
an undue deprivati n
petiti ner¶s right t travel. " ll ay is n t merely an
rdinary r ad and
r public sa
ety and interest, certain restricti ns must be
imp sed. 3etiti ner¶s right t travel is n t taken aay since ith the use

ther
rms
transp rtati n, they may still travel thr ugh t ll ays r use
alternate r utes i
they are t use their m t rcycles. (iras l v. D3WH)

  ?
 


    3¯



 
the interest
nati nal security r public health als impaired by bail   
¯   6 ¯




¯   
 ¯
  3
 ¯ ¯  
¯


¯ ¯

%("+."he right inv lved in this case at bar is the right t return t
¯ ¯
        ¯   ¯ 
   3

ne's c untry, a distinct right under internati nal la, independent
r m,  ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ ¯  
  3
 ¯
alth ugh related t the right t travel. "hus, the DH and the 9CC3 treat ¯


 
6  -

  3
¯
   ¯  3¯ 

the right t
reed m
m vement and ab de ithin the territ ry
a state,  ¯
the right t leave the c untry, and the right t enter ne's c untry as separate 
and distinct rights. ¯ %( (#)/',"% %#
 "he right t return t ne's c untry is n t c vered by the speci
ic right t m "he right t in
rmati n and right t access
rec rds and d cuments is a
travel and liberty
ab de pr vided
r in the 1987 C nstituti n. "here
re,
rm
p litical right

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
 "he inc rp rati n in the C nstituti n
a guarantee
access t in
rmati n

public c ncern is rec gniti n
the essentiality
the
ree
l 
ideas and
in
rmati n in a dem cracy. 9n the instant case, hile re
using t c n
irm r
deny the claims
eligibility, the resp ndent has
ailed t cite any pr visi n in
the Civil Service Pa hich  uld limit the petiti ner's right t kn  h are,
and h are n t, civil service eligible¶s. (Pegaspi v. CSC)
3etiti ner requested
r in
rmati n n the eligibility
Sanitary standard
inspect rs: (Pegazpi v. CSC)3S arvasa)
1.m 9s such in
rmati n a matter
,*/+%&&#&#?
subject t reas nable sa
eguards
r the sake
nati nal
interest. ight attaches OPY up n
inal appr val
the
3resident.
¯ ‰? the ³C de
C nduct and gthical Standards
r 3ublic O

icials and
gmpl yees´ pr vides that, in the per
rmance
their duties, all public

icials
and empl yees are bliged t resp nd t letters sent by the public ithin

i
teen (15)  rking days
r m receipt there
and t ensure the accessibility

all public d cuments
r inspecti n by the public ithin reas nable  rking
h urs, subject t the reas nable claims
c n
identiality. (Ú nzalez v.
(3
  "
embrace a br ad spectrum
subjects hich the public
may have a right t kn , either because they directly a

ect their lives r
simply because they ar use the interest
an rdinary citizen)
2.m D es petiti ner have #)%#(?
3.m 9
denied, hat $)' d es he have? andamus
"he right t in
rmati n g es handinhand ith the c nstituti nal p licies


ull public discl sure and h nesty in the public service. 9t is meant t enhance
the idening r le
the citizenry in the g vernmental decisi nmaking as ell
as in checking abuse in the g vernment. Albeit, the right t in
rmati n is n t

."he g vernment, hether carrying ut its s vereign attributes r
abs lute, it is limited t matters
public c ncern and interest, and is
urther
subject t limitati ns as may be imp sed by la.
 As t
urnishing lists h ever, r abstracts
l ans, there is O clear
bligati n hich may be c mpelled by mandamus. "he C nstituti n d es n t
acc rd them the right t c mpel cust dians


icial rec rds t prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire t acquire in
rmati n n
matters
public c ncern. (aalm nte v. Belm nte)
m ight may be regulated thr ugh standards that have been devel ped
r
the regulati n
speech and press and
assembly and petiti n and

ass ciati n are applicable t the right
access t in
rmati n:
1.m Substantive regulati ns ± t kn  hat is s ught is
public c ncern
2.m Statut ry regulati ns ± la may exempt d cuments a

ecting public
interest
3.m 3r cedural regulati ns ±

icers may regulate the manner by hich
the pers n may l k thr ugh the in
rmati n
a.m "#$##&  right attaches nce the c mmittee
While access t

icial rec rds may n t be pr hibited, % &%#+' $' /
(*+) "he regulati n may c me either
r m statut ry la and
r m the
inherent p er
an

icer t c ntr l his

ice and the rec rds under his
cust dy and t exercise s me discreti n as t the manner in hich pers ns
desiring t inspect, examine, r c py the rec rd may exercise their rights. "he
requirement
payment
r the repr ducti n is reas nable under the
circumstances c nsidering that the rdinance is quite v lumin us c nsisting

m re than a hundred pages. (Berdin v. ascarinas)

running s me business, discharges the same
uncti ns
service t the
pe ple. 9t is the clear intent
the c nstituti nal C mmissi n t include
g vernment ned and c ntr lled c rp rati ns in the sc pe
the right t
in
rmati n. (aalm nte v. Belm nte)
. 9t is incumbent up n the 3CÚÚ and its

icers, as ell as ther
g vernment representatives, t discl se su

icient public in
rmati n n any
pr p sed settlement they have decided t take up ith the stensible ners
and h lders
illg tten ealth. Such in
rmati n, th ugh, must pertain t
de
inite pr p siti ns
the g vernment. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ)
3
."here is n d ubt that the "CB is public is character; it is an

ice
created t serve public interest. 9t being the case, resp ndents can lay n
valid claim t privacy. "he right t privacy bel ngs t the individual acting in
his private capacity and n t t a g vernmental agency r

icers tasked ith,
and acting in, the discharge
public duties. Decisi ns (in this case, the
"CB) made in an

icial capacity are public and n t private matters.
(Aquin Sarmient v.  rat )
makes its 
 

, hich is a ³© 

   )
n the part
the g vernment.
b.m
%  E  &*#%  9n
n interg vernment
exchanges pri r t the c nclusi n
treaties and executive
agreements ith regard t dipl matic neg tiati ns may be
 3.Applying the O¶ Brien test, the C urt
inds that said la is a valid
exercise
the p er
the State t regulate media
c mmunicati n r
in
rmati n
r the purp se
ensuring equal pp rtunity
time and space

r p litical campaigns. (Osmena v. COgPgC)


Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

the reas nable limitati ns required
r the rderly c nduct


icial business.
 "he COgPgC vi lated the right t in
rmati n and
ree access t d cuments (Ú nzalez v. arvasa)
clause hen it re
used t discl se the n minees
the partylist gr ups.
While the v te cast in a partylist electi n is a v te
r a party, such a v te, in
the end,  uld be a v te
r its n minees. 3e ple have the right t elect their
representatives n the basis
an in
rmed judgment. &(#%=)+%$%%# #%(%#!$%#S"SCD
(a) %#+
&*%' matters including state secrets n military,
 "here is n thing that pr hibits the C melec
r m discl sing r even dipl matic and ther nati nal security and in
rmati n n inter
publishing the names
the partylist n minees thr ugh mediums ther than g vernment exchanges pri r t c nclusi n
executive agreements r
the certi
ied list (Bantay v. COgPgC) treaties,
(b)
) & and banking transacti ns,
##+ 3#*+ . "he requirement
c n
identiality
the c ntents
the (c) %$%#+$ r classi
ied la en
rcement matters,
manual c ntaining the details and pr cedure
administering lethal injecti n (d) ther c n
idential matters ()%,+$%& a

airs)
ith respect t the c nvict is unduly suppressive
r the c ntents
the same
is a matter
public c ncern. (gchagaray v. Sec.
ustice) equirements
the  %)#%+$$*#%&%# %"%+(QO3C
"#$# #& .  Ú vernment agencies, ith ut need
demand 1.m "he c mmunicati n must relate t a '1*%# #%+ and n n

r m any ne, must bring int public vie all the steps and neg tiati ns delegable p er
the 3resident  the p er t enter int an
leading t the c nsummati n
the transacti n and the c ntents
the executive agreement ith ther c untries.
per
ected c ntract. "he g vernment agency, h ever, need n t discl se 2.m "he c mmunicati ns are "received" by a cl se advis r
the
³intraagency r interagency rec mmendati ns r c mmunicati ns during the 3resident under the ³,%#+,0%$%' ´
expl rat ry stage.´ (Chavez v. HA) ±similar t Chavez v. 3CÚÚ 3.m "here is
& 
 

©

&$,++%#( #) that  uld
justi
y the limitati n
the privilege and the unavailability
the
 Once the c mmittee makes its 
 

, there arises a in
rmati n elsehere by an appr priate investigating auth rity.
³© 
   )
n the part
the g vernment. Ãr m this m ment, the
public¶s right t in
rmati n attaches, and any citizen can access all the n n  "he right
C ngress t btain in
rmati n in aid
legislati n cann t be
pr prietary in
rmati n leading t such de
inite pr p siti n. equated ith the pe ple's right t public in
rmati n. "he
rmer cann t claim
 A c nsummated c ntract is n t a requirement
r the exercise
the right t that every legislative inquiry is an exercise
the pe ple¶s right t in
rmati n.
in
rmati n. Otherise, the pe ple can never exercise the right i
n c ntract
is c nsummated, and i
ne is c nsummated, it may be t late
r the public %(#1*%' C ngress¶ right t pass las necessarily implies the right t
t exp se its de
ects. equiring a c nsummated c ntract ill keep the public btain in
rmati n up n any matter hich may bec me the subject
a la.
in the dark until the c ntract bec mes a
ait acc mpli. nder the present circumstances, the alleged an malies in the 3hilc msat,
 "he c nstituti nal right t in
rmati n includes

icial in
rmati n n " 3HC and 3O" ranging in milli ns
pes s, and the c nspirat rial participati n




  
be
re a
inal c ntract. "he in
rmati n, h ever, 

3CÚÚ and its

icials are c mpelling reas ns
r the Senate t exact vital
 
© 
   
by the g vernment and sh uld n t c ver in
rmati n
r m the direct rs and

icers
3hilc msat H ldings C rp rati n,


 



 ©   
 


  
as ell as
r m Chairman Sabi and his C mmissi ners t aid it in cra
ting the


 
 
©©

 




. necessary legislati n t prevent c rrupti n and
rmulate remedial measures
(Chavez v. 3gA)
 Zam ra, in his

icial capacity as gxecutive Secretary, has a c nstituti nal
and statut ry duty t anser petiti ner¶s letter dealing ith matters hich are
unquesti nably
public c ncern ± that is, app intments made t public


ices and the utilizati n
public pr perty. With regard t petiti ner¶s
request
r c pies
the app intment papers
certain

icials, resp ndent
Zam ra is bliged t all  the inspecti n and c pying
the same subject t
6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
and p licy determinati n regarding 3CÚÚ¶s e

icacy. (Sabi v. Ú rd n)
.*+)/, *$,** #,!* *$$%+'
&$,+ ,*/+%&  ,#)# t c mply ith pertinent pr visi ns
la
regarding pr curement
g vernment in
rastructure pr jects %* #'
!&*+ / % r pri r determinati n
very particular vi lati ns c mmitted
by speci
ic g vernment

icials
the executive branch. (Suplic v. gDA)
1A 2010
m
 Decisi ns and pini ns
a c urt are
c urse matters
public c ncern r
interest. ustice thus requires that all sh uld have
ree access t the pini n

judges and justices. But unlike c urt rders and decisi ns, h ever,
,+)%#( #) )&*$#  !%+)/' ,%   & #)# /
$ !,*/+%&&#&#%#  9n determining hich part
a case
may be accessed, the purp se
r hich the parties
iled them is c nsidered.
Úranting unrestricted public access and publicity t pers nal in
rmati n may
c nstitute an unarranted invasi n
privacy. (Hilad v. eyes)
%,+$%&(%%#  "he ature
dipl macy requires the
centralizati n
auth rity and expediti n
decisi n, hich are inherent in
executive acti n. Delegates
r m ther c untries tell y u their c ncerns in
c n
idence, and hile the
inal text
the 3g3A may n t be perpetually
c n
idential, the

ers exchanged by the parties during the neg tiati ns
c ntinue t be privileged even a
ter the 3g3A is published. 9t is reas nable t
assume that the apanese delegates expect that ³hist ric c n
identiality´
 uld g vern the same. (Akbayan v. Aquin )
 3

 
 
¯¯
 ?  
 
 
3
  333? 3¯ 3¯
 ¯? ¯

¯ 3
"he pe ple's right t in
rmati n n matters
public c ncern under Sec. 7,
Article 999
the C nstituti n is in  


ith the state p licy
C mmunities/9ndigen us 3e ples. +  


 
 


 


justi
y the exercise
the pe ple's right t be c nsulted n relevant matters
relating t the peace agenda.
 , g.O.  . 3 itsel
is replete ith mechanics
r c ntinuing c nsultati ns n
b th nati nal and l cal levels and
r a principal
rum
r c nsensusbuilding.
9n
act, it is the duty
the 3residential Adviser n the 3eace 3r cess t
c nduct regular dial gues t seek relevant in
rmati n, c mments, advice,
and rec mmendati ns
r m peace partners and c ncerned sect rs
s ciety.
* , epublic Act  . 7160 r the P cal Ú vernment C de
1991 requires all
nati nal

ices t c nduct c nsultati ns be
re any pr ject r pr gram critical
t the envir nment and human ec l gy including th se that may call
r the
evicti n
a particular gr up
pe ple residing in such l cality, is
implemented therein. "he OAAD is ne peculiar pr gram that unequiv cally
and unilaterally vests nership
a vast territ ry t the Bangsam r pe ple,
hich c uld pervasively and drastically result t the diasp ra r displacement

a great number
inhabitants
r m their t tal envir nment.
*, epublic Act  . 8371 r the 9ndigen us 3e ples ights Act
1997
pr vides
r clearcut pr cedure
r the rec gniti n and delineati n

ancestral d main, hich entails, am ng ther things, the bservance
the

ree and pri r in
rmed c nsent
the 9ndigen us Cultural

ull public discl sure
all its transacti ns inv lving public interest under Sec. ,
-  




  

 


 

  


28, Article 99
the C nstituti n. "he right t in
rmati n guarantees the right 


 
  
 




 

  


the pe ple t demand in
rmati n, hile Secti n 28 rec gnizes the duty



iciald m t give in
rmati n even i
n b dy demands. "he c mplete and
e

ective exercise
the right t in
rmati n necessitates that its
c mplementary pr visi n n public discl sure derive the same sel
execut ry
nature, subject nly t reas nable sa
eguards r limitati ns as may be
pr vided by la.
"he c ntents
the OAAD is a matter
param unt public c ncern inv lving
public interest in the highest rder. 9n declaring that the right t in
rmati n
"he inv cati n
the d ctrine
executive privilege as a de
ense t the
general right t in
rmati n r the speci
ic right t c nsultati n is untenable.
"he vari us explicit legal pr visi ns
ly in the
ace
executive secrecy. 9n any
event, resp ndents e

ectively aived such de
ense a
ter it unc nditi nally
discl sed the

icial c pies
the
inal dra
t
the OAAD,
r judicial
c mpliance and public scrutiny.

  @
 


   


c ntemplates steps and neg tiati ns leading t the c nsummati n
the 3 
¯ ¯





3 

c ntract, jurisprudence
inds n distincti n as t the execut ry nature r ¯

¯
 
 




  

 
  
¯ 
c mmercial character
the agreement.
¯
¯
¯ 
An essential element
these tin
reed ms is t keep a c ntinuing dial gue
r pr cess
c mmunicati n beteen the g vernment and the pe ple.
C r llary t these tin rights is the design
r
eedback mechanisms. "he right
t public c nsultati n as envisi ned t be a species
these public rights.
At least three pertinent las animate these c nstituti nal imperatives and
Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m

m Ú vernment empl yees have the right t
rm uni ns but this d es n t
include the right t strike. 

 Ú vernment empl yees are denied the same eap ns/m des
petiti ning
and neg tiati n that their private sect r c unterparts have
r the betterment

the terms and c nditi ns
their empl yment. (SSS gmpl yees v. CA)
1A 2010
m
Mm ³this C urt had already de
initively ruled that empl yees in the public 
(civil) service, unlike th se in the private sect r, d n t have the right
t strike, alth ugh guaranteed the right t sel
 rganizati n, t petiti n 
C ngress
r the betterment
empl yment terms and c nditi ns and
t neg tiate ith appr priate g vernment agencies
r the
impr vement
such  rking c nditi ns as are n t
ixed by la´
(anila 3ublic Sch l "eachers Ass c. v. Pagui r.)

 anagerial empl yees are n t all ed t j in, assist, r
rm uni ns.
 "he Pab r C de may pr hibit managerial empl yees
r m
j ining/assisting/
rming any lab r rganizati ns:
Mm Sec. 8 says ³"he right
the pe plet
rm uni ns, ass ciati ns, r
s cieties
r purp ses 
m ltimate right
s vereign p er t appr priate, n t nly public, but als
private pr perty ithin the territ rial s vereignty,
r public purp ses.
m 9nherently p ssessed by the State thr ugh the ati nal g vernment
(+(% +*) and may be delegated t :
a)m l cal g vernment units, pursuant t an rdinance
enacted by respective legislative b dies.
b)m 3ublic utilities, as may be delegated by la.
1*% % !"+%)0&% !,!$%##)$%#
a.m "he pr perty taken must be private pr perty;
b.m "here must be genuine necessity t take the private
pr perty;




shall n t be abridged´ c.m "he taking must be
r public use;
Mm Pab r c de is la, uni n participati n
managerial empl yees is d.m "here must be payment
just c mpensati n; and
c ntrary t Pa e.m "he taking must c mply ith due pr cess
la.
³i
these managerial empl yees  uld bel ng t r be a

iliated ith a ni n, 
the latter might n t be assured
their l yalty t the ni n in vie
evident 1*% % !0&% $%##)$%#
c n
lict
interest. "he ni n can als bec me c mpanyd minated ith the 1.m aalid and de
inite

er previ usly made t the ner but as n t
presence
managerial empl yees in the ni n membership.´ ( 3SC v. accepted
Paguesma) 2.m Ordinance enacted auth rizing such exercise
 Alth ugh the 9  
3 

1953 a

irmed the right
supervis rs,
r
#.+%#3#( t
rm their n rganizati ns.
 "he right t j in ass ciati ns includes %(
>%#
 ne can be c mpelled t j in an ass ciati n ith ut his c nsent.
 "he bylas r charters
c rp rati n cann t bind r c mpel a pers n, n t
party t the creati n
the charter/bylas, t bec me a member
the
c rp rati n/ass ciati n because he has n t given his c nsent.
(Sta. Clara H me ners Ass ciati n v. Úast n)
But a ))! +, hich pr vides that the buyer must aut matically j in an
ass ciati n, is binding because his participati n in the c ntract implies his
c nsent. He c uld have ch sen t n t purchase the pr perty.
 nder the " rrens system
registrati n, claims and liens
hatever
character except th se menti ned by la existing against the land binds the
h lder
the title and the h le  rld. 3ADCO c uld have av ided
membership by n t buying the land. (3ADCO vs. Ortigas Center Ass ciati n)

  G  ¯
  

3.m 3 er enacted
r public use, el
are, purp se r
r the bene
it

the p r and landless
4.m 3ayment
just c mpensati n
As underst d
r m the c mm n and usual meaning
the c njuncti n and,
the pr visi ns
3D 1517 apply nly t areas declared t be l cated ithin
b th an Area
r 3ri rity Devel pment (A3D) and an rban Pand e
rm Z ne
( PZ). (S landa v. CA)
9t is n ted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney,
primarily because the small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big
land ners, h can a

rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things

value. (Sant s v. Pand Bank)
Despite the existence
this legislative grant in
av r
l cal g vernments, it
is still the duty
the c urts t determine hether the p er
eminent
d main is being exercised in acc rdance ith the delegating la. "he
requisites t be c nsidered by the c urts are:
1.m An rdinance is enacted by the l cal legislative c uncil
¯ 
 
¯B
  auth rizing the l cal chie
executive, in behal

the l cal


 
-

 3
¯
  g vernment unit, t exercise the p er
eminent d main r
 pursue expr priati n pr ceedings ver a particular private
9m 0,,%%#%##+ pr perty. x x x
$%##$%#

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
9n the present case, the City
andaluy ng seeks t exercise the p er

eminent d main ver petiti ners' pr perty by means
a res luti n, in
c ntraventi n
the
irst requisite. Secti n 19
the C de requires an
rdinance, n t a res luti n,
r the exercise
the p er
eminent d main.
gxpr priati n is n t limited t the acquisiti n
real pr perty ith a
c rresp nding trans
er
title r p ssessi n. "he right
ay easement
resulting in a restricti n r limitati n n pr perty rights ver the land
traversed by transmissi n lines als
alls ithin the ambit
the term
"expr priati n."
"he C urt, in   

©
3  &

.
 

    ,
distinguished beteen an rdinance and a res luti n. ³A municipal rdinance
is di

erent
r m a res luti n. An rdinance is a la, but a res luti n is merely
a declarati n
the sentiment r pini n
a lamaking b dy n a speci
ic
matter. An rdinance p ssesses a general and permanent character, but a
res luti n is temp rary in nature. Additi nally, the t are enacted di

erently
² a third reading is necessary
r an rdinance, but n t
r a res luti n,
unless decided therise by a maj rity
all the Sanggunian members.´
(Heirs
Albert Suguitan v. City
andaluy ng)
%#+%'!-*)($#."he judgment giving HA the right t expr priate the
pr perties menti ned became
inal and execut ry. ³9t is arbitrary and
*/ %*%#."he real party in interest in expr priati n cases is the epublic
caprici us
r a g vernment agency t initiate expr priati n pr ceedings, seize
a pers n¶s pr perty, all  the judgment
the c urt t bec me
inal and
execut ry and then re
use t pay n the gr und that there are n
appr priati ns
r the pr perty earlier taken and pr
itably used.³ (HA v.
Heirs
9sidr Úuivel nd )
-*  &$,# %# %  )!%#)    !*++ #) !% 1*%"+# ! 
,,' 2# !$ %  # /'  0,,%
 $ * % 
#  2C  (%# /*  #C  + "he  rd "just" is used t
intensi
y the meaning
the  rd "c mpensati n" and t c nvey thereby the
idea that the equivalent t be rendered
r the pr perty t be taken shall be
real, substantial,
ull and ample. "he valuati n
a pr perty in the tax
declarati n cann t be an abs lute substitute t just c mpensati n. (3C v.
Capin)

/9m #)20,,%%# 

the 3hilippines. gxpr priati n suits are br ught in behal

and
r the
bene
it
the epublic
the 3hilippines. it
ll s that the epublic
the
3hilippines is entitled t be substituted in the expr priati n pr ceedings as
partyplainti

in lieu
9SA, the statut ry term
9SA having expired. 3ut a
little di

erently, the expirati n
9SA's statut ry term did n t by itsel
require
r justi
y the dismissal
the eminent d main pr ceedings. (9r n and Steel
9n the case


3P-*, the C urt held that alth ugh an easement

a right
ay transmits n rights except the easement itsel
, and resp ndent
retains
ull nership
the pr perty, the acquisiti n
such easement is,
nevertheless, n t
 . C nsidering the nature and the e

ect
the t be examined here: ne is the necessity
r the taking; an ther is the legal
installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use
the land
r an inde
inite
peri d  uld deprive resp ndent
n rmal use
the pr perty. Ã r this
reas n, the latter is entitled t payment
a just c mpensati n, hich must
be neither m re n r less than the m netary equivalent
the land.
While Secti n 3(a)
.A.  .6395, as amended, and the implementing rule

.A.  . 8974 indeed state that nly 10%
the market value
the
pr perty is due t the ner
the pr perty subject t an easement
right

ay, said rule is n t binding n the C urt. Wellsettled is the rule that the
determinati n
"just c mpensati n" in eminent d main cases is a judicial

uncti n. Any valuati n
r just c mpensati n laid d n in the statutes may
serve nly as guiding principle r ne
the
act rs in determining just
c mpensati n but it may n t substitute the c urt's n judgment as t hat
am unt sh uld be aarded and h  t arrive at such am unt. (3C v.
3ure
ds)
- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
Auth rity v. CA)
"hresh ld requisites
r la
ul taking
private pr perty
r public use need
auth rity t e

ect the taking.A reas nable relati nship beteen that p er
and the en
rcement and administrati n
electi n las by C melec must be
sh n; it is n t casually t be assumed. (3hilippine 3ress 9nstitute v.
COgPgC)

(*+%#!%"%+(% #
2%#( 9n truth, radi and televisi n
br adcasting c mpanies, hich are given
ranchises, d n t n the airaves
and
requencies thr ugh hich they transmit br adcast signals and images.
"hey are merely given the temp rary privilege
using them. Since a

ranchise is a mere privilege, the exercise
the privilege may reas nably be
burdened ith the per
rmance by the grantee
s me
rm
public service.
("elebap v. COgPgC)

$,+%#&%,&)*+)*,& % $#)'#)$#%#
$* /+    9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings are t
be res rted t nly a
ter the ther m des
acquisiti n have been exhausted.
C mpliance ith these c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly
1A 2010
m

sa
eguards

tentimes helpless ners
private pr perty against vi lati n

due pr cess hen their pr perty is
rcibly taken
r m them
r public use.
(gstate
Heirs
the Pate gxustice BP v. City
anila)
 3rivate lands rank last in the rder
pri rity
r purp ses
s cialized
h using. 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings may be res rted t nly
a
ter the ther m des
acquisiti n are exhausted. C mpliance ith these
c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly sa
eguards

tentimes
helpless ners
private pr perty against hat may be a tyrannical vi lati n

due pr cess hen their pr perty is
rcibly taken
r m them allegedly
r
public use. (Pagca v. Pabra)
 easement, i
  




  
,  uld be a de
inite
&9m %( ! #/!0,,%%#
 A cl se scrutiny
the rec rds reveals that the Sangguniang Bayan did n t
establish r maintain any public market n the subject l t. "he res luti n
merely menti ned the plan t acquire the l t
r expansi n
the public
market adjacent theret . #%+0,,%%#,&)%#( %# %*)
%#&*+#)#&##/),%")!% %("+#).
(Úreater Balanga v. unicipality
Balanga)
 9t must be stressed that the agreement t trans
er the pr perty as made in
1974.  re than tenty years later, n actual trans
er had yet been made.
nless and until the trans
er is c nsummated, r expr priati n pr ceedings
instituted by the g vernment, private resp ndent c ntinues t retain
nership
the land subject
this case. (aelarma v. CA)
)9m +$# !
2%#(
equisites
r "aking:
1.m "he expr priat r must enter up n the private pr perty
2.m "he entrance must n t be
r a m mentary peri ds, that is, the
entrance must be permanent
3.m "he entry must be under the arrant r c l r
legal auth rity
4.m "he pr perty must be dev ted
r public use
5.m tilizati n
the pr perty must be in such a ay as t ust the ner
and deprive him
all bene
icial enj yment
the pr perty.
(epublic v. ada. De Castelvi)
 Where there is n taking
pr perty
r purp ses
eminent d main, n r
c ndemnati n pr ceedings instituted, the basis
r determinati n
just
c mpensati n is the time hen the trial c urt made its )
expr priati n.
(Úarcia v. CA)
*%++ !*,  3 lice 3 er d es n t include the p er t take
r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
pr perty 


a
e cases here there is a necessity t
c n
iscate private pr perty in rder t destr y it
r the purp se
pr tecting
peace and rder and t pr m te the general el
are. By c n
iscating a part

a private cemetery t be given t paupers, the city is n t exercising p lice
p er but rather, the taking
private pr perty, hich sh uld be
c mpensated. (Úarcia v. CA)
 "he air is a public highay, as C ngress has declared. But this general
principle d es n t apply here. 9
the land ner is t have
ull enj yment
the
land, he must have exclusive c ntr l
the immediate reaches
the
envel ping atm sphere. "h ugh nly an  $#!!+%(is inv lved, that
exercise
c mplete d mini n and c ntr l ver the sur
ace
the land. "he

act that the planes never t uched the sur
ace  uld be irrelevant. "he
ner's right t p ssess and expl it the land  that is t say, his bene
icial
nership
it   uld be destr yed. 9t is the Oner¶s P ss, O" the taker¶s
gain, hich is imp rtant.
 C mpensable taking d es n t need t inv lve all the pr perty 9nterests,
hich
rm part
the right t nership. When ne r m re
the pr perty
rights are appr priated and applied t a public purp se, there is taking even i

the bare title t the pr perty still remains ith the private ner. ( S v.
Causby)
 3r perty rights essentially include the
ull use
the pr perty. An rdinance
hich permanently restricts the use
pr perty, that it cann t be used
r any
reas nable purp se, is rec gnized as a taking
pr perty. 9
the municipality
ants t assure that n structure  uld bstruct the vie
the plaza, they
sh uld have given just c mpensati n
r the land. (3e ple v. Ãajard )
*/+%&%+%%  While the epublic may n t c mpel 3PD" t enter int a
c ntract, the epublic may, in the exercise
eminent d main, require 3PD"
t permit interc nnecti n
the g vernment ph ne system / 3PD", subject
t just c mpensati n t be determined by the c urt.
 "here is n reas n hy the State may n t require a public utility t render
services in the general interest, pr vided just c mpensati n is paid there
r.
ltimately, the bene
iciary
the interc nnecting service  uld be the users

b th teleph ne systems, s that the c ndemnati n  uld be
r public use.
(ep. v. 3PD")
 p n the
iling
the c mplaint in gminent D main pr ceedings, r at any
time therea
ter, a
ter due n tice t de
endant, the petiti ner has the right t
take r enter up n the p ssessi n
the real pr perty inv lved i
he dep sits
1A 2010
m

an am unt equivalent t the assessed value
the pr perty ith the 3B
r pr ceedings, the just c mpensati n is generally the market value.
purp ses
taxati n. (3C v.  cs n)
 "he nature and character
the land at the time
its taking is the principal
 "here is n taking since the landmark la had n t trans
erred c ntr l ver criteri n
r determining h  much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the
the pr perty t the city, but nly  the appellant's expl itati n
it. A land ner. (3C v. anubay)
state statute that substantially
urthers imp rtant public p licies and   

the quality
li
e by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic
eatures

a city may s
rustrate distinct 9agS"g"BACKgD 9"ggS"S.
 "here is a D9ÃÃggCg beteen gASOABPg use
pr perty and OS"
BggÃ9C9AP use
pr perty =  ³taking´ ccurs i
ner can still reas nably
use the pr perty, even i
he may bear s me l sses due t State¶s
restricti n/las.
>* &$,# %# is c nsidered t be the sum equivalent t the market
value
the pr perty, br adly described t be the pr perty¶s !%$2
"+*, r:
³"he price
ixed by the seller in pen market in the usual and rdinary c urse

legal acti n and c mpetiti n O the
air value
the pr perty as beteen
ne h receives, and ne h desires t sell it,
ixed at the time the
its
actual taking by the g vernment.´

HOWgag,  %&%##+,,'$'&# %*H2%#(H%!: 9n +3

 right
ay easement resulting in  %&%#
a.m  public purp se +%$%%# n pr perty rights als
alls ithin the ambit
³expr priati n´ as
b.m Has an unduly harsh impact up n the ner's use
the there as l ud buzzing and expl ding s unds caused by the transmissi n
pr perty lines, it a

ects the rights
the ner t use r sell such land. (3C v. San
c.m Has same e

ect as the c mplete destructi n
rights
land 3edr )
ners(3enn Central "ransp rt v. YC)
  9n the determinati n
[
air market] value, the c urt is n t limited t the

)
& . Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many
assessed value
the pr perty r t the schedule
market values determined
the characteristics
m re traditi nal
rms
pr perty.  re ver, this C urt by the pr vincial r city appraisal c mmittee; these values c nsist but ne
has
und ther kinds
intangible interests t be pr perty
r purp ses
the
act r in the judicial valuati n
the pr perty. "he 

  
the
Clause. "he c urt als held that s l ng as the taking has a c nceivable public land at the time
its taking is the principal criteri n
r determining h 
character, the means by hich it ill be attained is
r c ngress t determine. much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the land ner. All the
acts as t
9n deciding ,%&*+("#$#+&%# (sh rt
the  
©

 
and 
  
, as ell as its   

acquisiti n) !!&)2%#(, this C urt
cuses n:
1)m "he character
the g vernmental acti n
2)m "he ec n mic impact
3)m Whether the acti n inter
eres ith reas nable investmentbacked
expectati ns

  , sh uld be c nsidered.
 9
the easement is %##)) t perpetually r inde
initely deprive the ner

his pr prietary rights by imp sing c nditi ns that a

ect the rdinary 

©
 $
 

  
the pr perty r thr ugh  


(uckelshaus v.  nsant )   
that are inc nsistent ith the exercise
the attributes

nership, r hen the intr ducti n
structures r bjects hich, by their
 An  $#!%(!' transmits n rights except the easement nature,  

  

  

©
 $

 




itsel
; resp ndent retains
ull nership
the pr perty. "he acquisiti n

such easement is, nevertheless, 

 . C nsidering the nature and the c mpensated
r the m netary equivalent
the land. (3C v. "iangc )
e

ect
the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use
the land
r
an  © 
   uld deprive resp ndent
n rmal use
the pr perty.
"he latter is entitled t just c mpensati n, hich must be neither m re n r
less than the land¶s m netary equivalent.
 ust c mpensati n is de
ined as the
ull and
air equivalent
the pr perty
taken
r m its ner by the expr priat r. 9n eminent d main r expr priati n
©
© and pr perty
und n the land is necessary, then the ner sh uld be
 "he taking
private lands under the (%#!$,($ partakes

the nature
an expr priati n pr ceeding.
 Since just c mpensati n embraces n t nly the c rrect determinati n
the
am unt t be paid t the ners
the land, but als its payment ithin a
reas nable time
r m the taking
the land, e think that the appellate c urt
c rrectly imp sed an %#  in the nature
damages
r the delay. (PB3 v.

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
9mperial)
 C nsidering the nature and the e

ect
the installati n p er lines, the
limitati ns n the use
the land
r an inde
inite peri d  uld deprive
resp ndent
n rmal use
the pr perty. "he C urt has c nsistently held that
the determinati n
just c mpensati n is a judicial
uncti n.  statute,
decree, r executive rder can mandate that its n determinati n shall
prevail ver the c urt¶s
indings. (3C v. B ngb ng)
 3gA¶s entry int the pr perty ith the permissi n
SADC, its previ us
ner, as n t
r the purp se
expr priating the pr perty. SADC all ed



3gA t enter the land n c nditi n that it sh uld pay a m nthly rental
310K.
Als , it must be n ted that a
ter its entry, 3gA requested SADC t d nate r
sell the land t the g vernment. 9ndeed, there as n intenti n n the part

3gA t expr priate subject pr perty. Why did it ask permissi n? 9t c uld have
simply exercised its p er
eminent d main. ("an v. epublic)
 "he undergr und tunnels imp se limitati ns n resp ndents¶ use
the
pr perty
r an inde
inite peri d and deprive them
its rdinary use. Based
up n the
reg ing, resp ndents are clearly entitled t the payment
just
c mpensati n.  tithstanding the
act that petiti ner nly ccupies the sub
terrain p rti n, it is liable t pay n t merely an easement
ee but rather the

ull c mpensati n
r land. "he nature
the easement practically deprives the
ners
its n rmal bene
icial use. (3C v. 9brahim)
purp se
the taking is public, meaning, any act that may be bene
icially
empl yed
r the general el
are, then the p er
eminent d main c mes
int play.(Sumul ng v. Úuerrer )
 "he City
anila, thr ugh its legislative branch, has the express p er t
acquire private lands and subdivide these lands int h me l ts
r sale t b na

ide tenants r ccupants, and t lab rers and l salaried empl yees
the
city. "hat nly a
e c uld actually bene
it
r m the expr priati n
the
pr perty d es n t diminish its public use character. 9t is simply n t p ssible t
pr vide all at nce land and shelter
r all h need them (
 ). 3ublic use n  includes the br ader n ti n
indirect public bene
it
r advantage, including in particular, urban land re
rm and h using.(3hil.
C lumbian Ass c. v. H n. 3anis)
 "he idea that "public use" is strictly limited t clear cases
"use by the
public" has l ng been discarded. "hat nly a
e  uld actually bene
it
r m
the expr priati n
pr perty d es n t necessarily diminish the essence and
character
public use. As l ng as the public has right
use, hether
exercised by ne r many members, a "public advantage" r "public bene
it"
accrues, su

icient t c nstitute a public use. 9t may be limited t the
inhabitants
a small r restricted l cality, but must be in c mm n, and n t

r a particular individual(s) al ne. (an sca v. CA)
 "he establishment
a pil t devel pment center  uld inure t the direct
"he "C misapplied the ruling in   


by substituting such
in
lati n
act r and r adjustment
act r
r the +(++' $#)) %#  perati nal, the center  uld make available t the c mmunity invaluable
in the price t be paid as just c mpensati n in expr priati n cases.  here
in the said decisi n may it be in
erred that damages
r such delay in the
payment
just c mpensati n, ther than the legal interest pr vided by la,
may be granted in additi n r c nsidered in c mputing the am unt
just
c mpensati n such as the in
lati n
act r applied by the trial c urt. (3OC v.
aglasang)
9m */+%&  ± any use that is
utility, advantage r pr ductivity
r the
bene
it
the public.
 ³3ublic se´ requirement is a
lexible, c mprehensive and ev lving c ncept.
Whatever may be bene
icially empl yed
r the general el
are satis
ies this
requirement. "he c nstructi n
l c st h using is rec gnized as a public
purp se. 9t is made pursuant t the Sate¶s mandate t pr m te s cial justice
in all phases
nati nal devel pment.
&%+%=)* %#(.
alls ithin the c n
ine
public use. As l ng as the
  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
bene
it and advantage
the pe ple
the 3r vince
Camarines Sur. Once
in
rmati n and techn l gy n agriculture,
ishery and the c ttage industry.
"he h using pr ject als satis
ies the public purp se requirement
the
C nstituti n. (3r vince
Cam Sur v. CA)
 9t is ell settled that expr priati n
private land
r urban devel pment
and slum clearance is
r a public purp se even i
the devel ped area is
© 
s ld t private h me ners, c mmercial
irms, entertainment, and
service c mpanies. (eyes v. HA)
 A
ter scrutinizing the rec rds, the C urt
und that the basis
the rdinance
as t bene
it the elendres C mp und H me ners Ass ciati n, a private,
n npr
it rganizati n, # the residents
Cani gan in general. 9t can be
seen that the ass ciati n anted a private playgr und and recreati nal
acility
and asikip¶s pr perty as the cl sest l t available. "hus, the taking as #

a public character.  re ver, there as already an alternative
acility
r
sp rts and recreati n in the area, the ain
rest 3ark. (asikip v. 3asig)
1A 2010
m
3%#%#( d es n t entail a simple right
ay, hich is rdinarily all ed by
the Civil C de. ining perati ns c nsist
a c nsiderable
c nstructi n and
depl yment that ill de
initely ust ners r ccupants
bene
icial
nership
their lands. Once mining perati ns c mmence, there is already
c mpensable taking.  re ver, mining is
r a public bene
it. All requisites

taking are there
re present. (Dipidi v. garth Savers v. Ú zun)
 "he limited meaning attached t "public use" is "use by the public" r "public
empl yment," that "a duty must dev lve n the pers n r c rp rati n h lding
pr perty appr priated by right
eminent d main t
urnish the public ith
the use intended, and that there must be a right n the part
the public, r
s me p rti n
it, r s me public r quasipublic agency n behal

the
%32+*."he market value
a piece
land is attained by a
public, t use the pr perty a
ter it is c ndemned."
 "he m re generally accepted vie sees "public use" as "public advantage,
c nvenience, r bene
it, and that anything hich tends t enlarge the
res urces, increase the industrial energies, and pr m te the pr ductive p er

any c nsiderable number
the inhabitants
a secti n
the state, r
hich leads t the gr th
t ns and the creati n
ne res urces
r the
empl yment
capital and lab r, [hich] c ntributes t the general el
are
and the pr sperity
the h le c mmunity." 9n this jurisdicti n, "public use"
is de
ined as "hatever is bene
icially empl yed
r the c mmunity."
(Barangay v. CA)
 "he p er
eminent d main is an inherent and indispensable p er
the
State. Als called the p er
expr priati n, it is described as ³the highest
and m st exact idea
pr perty remaining in the g vernment´ that may be
acquired
r s me public purp se thr ugh a meth d ³in the nature
a
c mpuls ry sale t the State.´ By virtue
its s vereign character, the
exercise
the p er prevails ver the n nimpairment clause, and is clearly
superi r t the
inal and execut ry judgment rendered by a c urt in an
ejectment case. (anapat v. CA)
evidence  uld pr m te
raud r bad
aith,
r it  uld enable the de
endant
t keep the bene
its already delivered by him
r m the transacti n in litigati n,
and, at the same time, evade the bligati ns, resp nsibilities r liabilities
assumed r c ntracted by him thereby. (actan v. "udtud)
!9m -* &$,# %# ± just and c mplete equivalent
the l ss, hich the
ner has t su

er by reas n
the expr priati n. Sum equivalent t
market value. ust be direct payments and n t just dep sits.
-* $,# %#IÃair arket aalue (+) c nsequential Damages ()
c nsequential Bene
its
c nsiderati n
all th se
acts, hich make it c mmercially valuable. "he rule
that sh uld be
ll ed is that: the market value
a pr perty 9s the price
hich 9t ill bring hen 9t is

ered
r sale by ne h desires, but is n t
bliged t sell it, and is b ught by ne h us under n necessity
having it.
"he vie
the c mmissi ners h are disinterested land ners 9s given
greater eight than that
an rdinary tier

acts. (City
anila v. gstrada)
#+ *+ value must be as
the time
the
iling, hich is als the
time
the taking.
Mm Ãiling c mes later than the taking ± value at the taking
Mm aalue increased independently ± value is at the
iling
Mm ust be determined n trial by c mmissi ners (gAPCO v.
3ineda) but the rep rt is n t
inal r c nclusive but
rec mmendat ry
Mm ay be in the
rm
m ney r g vernment b nds, as l ng as it
is certain
Mm Ãact rs t be c nsidered: nature
the pr perty,
uture
c nvertibility, change in value
pes , value
standing cr ps,
time
taking
 " all  the c urt t change the am unt
the dep sit as it sees
it, at any
 eaning
ul statements in the b dy
the - arrant the c nclusi n
that the expr priated pr perties  uld remain t be s until it as c n
irmed
that Pahug Airp rt as n l nger "
  ". "his in
erence
urther implies
that a
ter the Pahug Airp rt ceased its undertaking as such and the
expr priated l ts ere n t being used
r any airp rt expansi n pr ject, the
rights "/" the expr priated P ts  s. 916 and 920 as beteen the State
and their
rmer ners, petiti ners herein, $* /1*%/+')>* )
9n execut ry c ntracts there is a ide
ield
r
raud because unless they be in
riting there is n palpable evidence
the intenti n
the c ntracting
parties. "he statute has precisely been enacted t prevent
raud. H ever, i
a
c ntract has been t tally r partially per
rmed, the exclusi n
par l
ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
time during the pr ceeding, the right
p ssessi n granted t the railr ad
c mpany might ell bec me illus ry and there
re makes the c urt's acti n
unc nstituti nal. (anila ailr ad v. 3aredes)
 When the plainti

takes p ssessi n /!the instituti n
the
c ndemnati n pr ceedings, the value sh uld be
ixed as
the time
the
taking
the said p ssessi n, n t the
iling
the c mplaint, and the latter
sh uld be the basis
r the determinati n
the value. When the taking
the
pr perty inv lved &%#&%) %%  */ 1*#, the c mmencement

,&)%#( , it ill be the basis
the value
the land. (unicipality

Daet v. CA)
1A 2010
m
 " determine just c mpensati n
r lands appr priated by the g vernment,
the basis sh uld be the value
the land r price at the time it as taken
r m
the ner and appr priated by the g vernment n t its
uture p tential. (3C
v. CA)
 9n an expr priati n pr ceeding, the c urt technically has the p er t
determine the just c mpensati n
r the pr perty. 3r visi ns hich encr ach
up n judicial prer gatives and renders the c urt inutile in a matter hich is
reserved t it
r
inal determinati n is v id. (g3ZA v. Dulay)
 "he nature
land bank b nd
rti
ies the vie that resp ndent may be
c mpelled t accept th se b nds at their
ace value. Agrarian re
rm cann t
be
ully realized ith ut the interventi n
the g vernment particularly in the
payment
just c mpensati n it is nly ith the supp rt
the g vernment
that payment
just c mpensati n t land ner may be realized. (addumba
v. ÚS9S)
 Am ng the
act r t be c nsidered in arriving at a
air market value
the
pr perty are the c st
acquisiti n, the current value
the pr perties, its
actual r p tential uses and tax declarati ns. C mmissi ner's rep rt alth ugh
nly advis ry and persuasive and by n means
inal, there
re, may be used
as basis
r determinati n
just c mpensati n. (Berkent tter v. CA)
 A trial be
re the C mmissi ners is indispensable t all  the parties t
present evidence n the issue
just c mpensati n there
re, the
app intment
c mmissi ners is mandat ry requirement 9n expr priati n
cases
r it is a substantial right that may n t be d ne aay ith ut any
reas n (eralc v. 3ineda/3C v. CA)
 ust c mpensati n means n t nly the c rrect determinati n
the am unt
t be paid t the ner
the land but als the payment
the land ithin
reas nable time
r m its taking. (Pand Bank v. CA)
 9n light
the declared unc nstituti nality
3.D.  . 76, 3.D.  .1533 and
3.D.  . 42 ins
ar as they sancti n executive determinati n
just
c mpensati n in expr priati n cases, %% %$,%"#'%(
%$$)%,  %#! */>&,,'&&*%#( ,#)#

¯ $* /!%$+' (*#))#"+%)&$,+%#&%
&%# 5
! *+ ‰?, .., there must be a dep sit ith the ati nal r 3r vincial
"reasurer
the value
the subject pr perty as pr visi nally and pr mptly
ascertained and
ixed by the c urt having jurisdicti n
the pr ceedings.
(3anes v. a9SCA)
%(%#+-*% )%&%#!
,&%+¯(%#* .Special Agrarian C urts,
hich are egi nal "rial C urts, are given riginal and exclusive jurisdicti n
 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
ver t categ ries
cases, t it: (1) "all petiti ns
r the determinati n

just c mpensati n t land ners" and (2) "the pr secuti n
all criminal


enses under [.A.  . 6657].
"he valuati n
pr perty in eminent d main is  #%++'>*)%&%+
!*#&%# hich cann t be vested in administrative agencies. (epublic v. CA)
$%#%#!!%$2"+*."he nature and character
the land
at the time
its taking is the principal criteri n t determine just
c mpensati n t the land ner.
"he
air market valuati n
land t be taken sh uld n t be based n the value

adjacent l ts i
the nature
the adjacent l ts is di

erent
r m the land
s ught t be expr priated. (3C v. Hens n)
¯)$%#% %"(*%)+%# !)$%#%#!>* &$,# %#
##&# %*%#+*#+ %% &#&+* %"*,#-*)%&%'
),%"%#($!%,(%"."he bjecti n that 3.D. 27 is
unc nstituti nal as it sets limitati ns n the judicial prer gative
determining
just c mpensati n is bere
t
merit. "he determinati n
just c mpensati n
under 3.D.  . 27, like in Secti n 16 (d)
.A. 6657 r the CA3 Pa, is n t

inal r c nclusive. nless b th the land ner and the tenant
armer accept
the valuati n
the pr perty by the Barri C mmittee n Pand 3r ducti n and
the DA, the parties may bring the dispute t c urt in rder t determine the
appr priate am unt
c mpensati n, a task unmistakably ithin the
prer gative
the c urt. (Sigre v. CA)
¯#++()*#>* &$,# %#% ##*()% &#%#*
0,,%%# +)'/&$!%#+#)0&*.3etiti ner
alleges that the intended public use as rendered nugat ry by the
unreas nable just c mpensati n
ixed by the c urt, hich is bey nd the
means
the intended bene
iciaries
the s cialized h using pr ject.

,*/+%&,*, ! &%+%=)* %#(,>&% #%##''
)%$%#% )/'$*#!>* &$,# %#&* 
!%0) 3etiti ner cann t be permitted t institute c ndemnati n pr ceedings
against resp ndents nly t aband n it later hen it
inds the am unt
just
c mpensati n unacceptable. (HA v. Heirs
9sidr Úuivel nd )

0)% ."he tax credit that is c ntemplated under the Seni r Citizens
Act is a
rm
just c mpensati n
r private pr perty taken by the State
r
public use, n t a remedy
r taxes that ere err ne usly r illegally
assessed/c llected. (C9 v. Central Puz n)
1A 2010
m

"ax credit is n t "ax deducti n. "he tax credit is the am unt representing the bstacle t the legislative arm
the g vernment. (epublic v. De Knecht)
20 percent disc unt granted t a quali
ied seni r citizen by all establishments
relative t their utilizati n
transp rtati n services, h tels and similar l dging  Ãixing just c mpensati n is a judicial
uncti n. arket value al ne cann t
establishments, restaurants, drugst res, recreati n centers, theaters, cinema substitute the c urt's judgment 9n expr priati n pr ceeding. (an t c v. HA)
h uses, c ncert halls, circuses, carnivals and ther similar places
culture,
leisure and amusement, hich disc unt shall be deducted by the said  "here is n extreme necessity t inv lve judicial acti n i
petiti ner has n t
establishments
r m their gr ss inc me
r inc me tax purp ses and
r m exhausted his administrative remedies (ilitante v. CA)
their gr ss sales
r valueadded tax r ther percentage tax purp ses. "ax
credit accrued during a
iscal year hen n taxes ere paid may be applied t
succeeding
iscal years. (C9 v. Bic landia)

  J   ¯ 3¯ 
 ¯
 
  
¯



¯¯

9n the event hen the g vernment is bliged t return the land expr priated
and the private party is bliged t return the purchase price but the
g vernment
ails t c mply, such
ailure am unts t expr priati n ith ut just
c mpensati n. "he private party is entitled t c mpensati n in the
rm

rentals and interest. (actan v. rgell )
gxpr priati n pr ceedings initiated 56 years ag by the g vernment but n t
acted up n (n payment
c mpensati n, n legislative appr val, and n
actual entry) is n t a valid expr priati n. 9t trans
ers n rights t the
expr priating party and d es n t deprive the ner
its auth rity ver the
land. "he n npayment
just c mpensati n and the am unt
time that has
passed may als be a bar t the g vernment because
laches. (San  que v.
epublic)
(9m -*)%&%+ "%
the exercise
eminent d main is limited the

ll ing areas
c ncern:
1.m adequacy
c mpensati n,
2.m necessity
the taking, and
3.m public use character
the purp se
the taking
gxcepti n: hen land is
r subdivisi n and resale
r s cial justice by
legislature.
 Ú vernment may n t caprici usly r arbitrarily ch se hat private pr perty
sh uld be taken. Due pr cess must be served. With due rec gniti n
the
p er
C ngress t designate the particular pr perty t bet taken and h 
much there
may be c ndemned in the exercise
the p er

expr priati n, it is still a judicial questi n hether in the exercise
such
c mpetence, the party adversely a

ected is a victim
partiality and
prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista)
 B3 340 e

ectively superseded the decisi n
the c urt and the trial c urt did
n t c mmit any grave abuse
discreti n in dismissing the case pending
be
re it n the gr und
the enactment
B3 340. Said decisi n is n
-
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m

When d es la impair bligati ns
c ntracts:
i.m 9
it changes the terms and c nditi ns
a legal c ntract ither as
t the time r m de
per
rmance
ii.m 9
it imp ses ne c nditi ns r dispenses ith th se expressed
iii.m 9
it auth rizes
r its satis
acti n s mething di

erent
r m that
pr vided in its terms.
A mere change in pr cedural remedies hich d es n t change the substance

the c ntract and hich still leaves a remedy
r en
rcement d es n t
impair bligati ns
c ntracts. (H me Building and P an Assn. v. Blaisdell;
utter v. gsteban)
+%&.All c ntracts are made subject t an implied reservati n
the
pr tective p er
the state and that there
re statutes, hich validly
exercise this, reserved p er d es n t impair c ntracts (Del  sari v. Del s
Sant s)
9n all cases:
šm 9mpairment sh uld nly re
er t the remedy and n t t substantive
right,
šm State must p stp ne the en
rcement
bligati n but cann t
destr y it by making the remedy
utile and
šm "he alterati n r change that the ne legislati n desires t rite
must n t be burdened ith restricti ns and c nditi ns that  uld
make the remedy hard t pursue.
"here
re, p lice p er may nly be inv ked and justi
ied by: 1) an
emergency, 2) temp rary in nature, 3) can nly be exercised up n reas nable
c nditi ns.

"he c ntract may be altered validly i
it inv lves the public interest, t hich
private interests must yield lies a p stulate
the existing s cial rder. 9n
1A 2010
m
 rman vs. Baltim re, the c urt stressed that every c ntract inv lving the
public interest su

ers in
irmity and may be changed i
required by public
interest. (3hilippine aeterans Bank gmpl yees v. 3hilippine aeterans Bank)
Pegislati n appr priate t sa
eguard said interest may m di
y r abr gate
c ntracts already in e

ect. Ã r n t nly are existing las read int c ntracts in
rder t
ix the bligati ns as beteen the parties but the reservati n

essential attributes
s vereign p er is als read int c ntracts as a
p stulate
the legal rder.
" c me under the c nstituti nal pr hibiti n, the la must e

ect a change in
the rights
the parties ith re
erence t each ther and n t ith re
erence t
n nparties. (Abella v. PC)
3*#%&%,+  +*%#. alth ugh n t strictly an rdinance is a z ning
regulati n hich is a p lice p er measure hich the municipality has the
p er t pass. (3resley v. BelAir aillage Assn. als held in Ortigas v. ÃgA"9
Bank)
"he requirement
n tice
the rescissi n under the aceda la d esn¶t
change the time r m de
per
rmance r imp se ne c nditi ns r
dispense ith the stipulati ns regarding the binding e

ect
the c ntract.
either d es it ithdra the remedy
r its en
rcement. At m st, it merely
pr vides
r a pr cedure in aid
the remedy
rescissi n. "here
re, it
d esn¶t impair the bligati ns
a c ntract. (S9SKA Devel pment v. O

ice

the 3resident)
m 9ncludes
ranchises but n t licenses r permits since these are special
privileges, marriage c ntracts, public

ice
A pr visi n
la pr hibiting the use
the all tted m dernizati n
unds
r
payment
a c ntract already entered int by the g vernment is vi lative

the C nstituti nal 3r hibiti n n the passage
las that impair the bligati n

c ntracts. (3hilc nsa v. gnriquez)
the State, in the exercise
p lice p er, may n t be precluded by the
restricti n n n nimpairment
c ntract
r m altering, m di
ying and
amending the mining leases r agreements. (iners Ass c. v. Ãact ran)
"he unilateral cancellati n
the
ranchise, hich has the status
a c ntract,
%*#%&%#(#)>* %!%/+&*  is int lerable in any system
here the ule
Pa prevails. (Pim v 3acquing)
A la pr viding ne gr unds
r the ejectment
tenants cann t be applied
retr actively t existing c ntracts but is deemed t be read int the c ntracts
hen the lease is reneed. (uarez v CA)
-6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
C nservat rs
a bank may verrule administrative acts
the management,
but it may n t inter
ere r impair the per
rmance
a validly per
ected
c ntract. (Ã39B v. CA)
C ntracts
lab r are impressed ith public interest and may be subject t
state regulati n and must yield t the c mm n g d. atters inv lving the
public interest and el
are cann t be placed by c ntract bey nd the p er

the State t regulate and c ntr l. (CA v 3OgA)
Statutes that are curative and remedial in nature, h se purp se is t
sa
eguard the interest
the public (such as real estate buyers)
r m
unscrupul us schemers must be given retr active e

ect and sh uld a

ect
c ntracts that are already in existence. "he C urt cann t all  the injustice
that ill be r ught by a strictly pr spective applicati n
the la. 9
3.D. 957
ere t exclude
r m its c verage the m rtgage c ntract herein, the purp se

3D. 957 ill be translated int a
eeble exercise
p lice p er. (3B v.
O

ice
the 3resident; gugeni v. Dril n)
"he n nimpairment clause
the C nstituti n must yield t the l
tier
purp ses targeted by the g vernment. ( v. CA citing gugeni v. Dril n in
justi
ying the regulat ry measures taken by the 3OgA inv lving Overseas
per
rming artists)

%$/+%&#  ,$% #)+%&# ($# are $
,%"%+( granted by the State t quali
iedentities, and d n t vest in the
latter a permanent rirrev cable right. "hey may be validly amended,
m di
ied, replaced r rescinded by the Chie
gxecutive hennati nal interests
s require.
"hey are #)$)&#& ithin the purvie
the due pr cess

laclause, merely instruments by hich the Stateregulates the utilizati n
and disp siti n

rest res urces t the end that public el
are is pr m ted.
(C& "imber v Alcala)
3residential Warranty is n t a c ntract but a mere license r privilege. 9t has
been c nsistently held that licenses, especially c ncerning timber harvest, are
neither pr perty n r pr perty rights and d n t create a vested right. All
licenses may be rev ked r rescinded by executive acti n. (Alvarez v. 39CO3
es urces)
A tax exempti n c ntained in the Certi
icates
egistrati n is
ar
r m being
c ntractual in nature in the sense that the n nimpairment clause
the
C nstituti n can rightly be inv ked. (epublic v. Cagui a)
1A 2010
m

"he Central bank may prevent the shareh lders
a bank under 
 5
c nservat rship
r m c llecting dividends i
public interest s requires. 3ublic 89 ¯     
¯
 

  33  

el
are is superi r t private rights. (epublic 3lanters Bank v. H n. Agana) ¯

  ¯¯
 



3
  


 3¯ 
 ¯
 ¯ ¯  3

 ¯ 

"he p er
a bank¶s c nservat r cann t extend t the rev cati n
existing    
 ¯
   

 ¯

valid c ntracts. 9
the legislature itsel
cann t rev ke a valid existing c ntract, ¯



 
  
  3

    

h  can it delegate such a n nexisting p er t a mere c nservat r? 

 

 ¯
  ¯ 7
   
 ¯
(3r ducers Bank
the 3hil v. PC) 
 

 

859 

 
 
 ¯

3¯
  ¯
9ncentive pay r bene
it is in the nature
a b nus hich is n t a demandable
  3¯
  
¯



 
¯  

r en
rceable bligati n. "he
rced re
und, pursuant t a la r an executive ¯¯

 3
 
 

  ¯


¯ 
rder,
an incentive pay hich as r ngly released, d es n t c nstitute an  33¯  
 
3¯ 
3

 

  ¯ 
impairment
c ntracts. (Blaquera v. Alcala)  

89 ¯  


   ¯3

  
¯   ¯
 

#&*+00$,%# " * !#&% 00$,%# 

 

 ?
¯¯3

¯¯


C ntractual tax exempti ns must n t be c n
used ith tax exempti ns 3
granted under
ranchises. A
ranchise partakes the nature
a grant hich is 8-9
¯
¯ 
¯¯
¯
 


bey nd the purvie
the n nimpairment clause
the C nstituti n. nder  ¯
 





  ¯
  ¯
  3
¯
 
 ¯
the C nstituti n, a
ranchise is alays under the c nditi n that it shall be ¯
¯
 
 
3



  
3¯   ¯


subject t amendment, alterati n r repeal by C ngress hen the c mm n
¯3

g d s requires. C ntractual tax exempti ns, h ever, may inv ke the n n
impairment clause. (gAPCO v. 3r vince
Paguna)
A license vi lating pr visi n
la is v id ± any rev cati n there
r
declarati n
nullity d es n t vi late n nimpairment clause. (epublic v
 sem r)
gnd rsement billb ards
an elect ral candidate may be regulated/rem ved
by COgPgC ith ut vi lating the n nimpairment clause as a valid exercise

p lice p er because the billb ards assumed partisan p litical character
hen he
iled
r candidacy. (Chavez v COgPgC)
A m rtgage inv lving inalienable land is v id ab initi and cann t be the
s urce
rights. "he n nimpairment clause may n t be inv ked, because the
state¶s restraint n private individuals
r m h lding nership r vested rights
n the said land (Ã rest) is a valid exercise
p lice p er. (Pand Bank
the
3hilippines v. epublic
the 3hilippines, represented by the Direct r

Pands)

  
 ¯
¯
 


¯* )%+#" %(%#
m Questi ning initiated by la en
rcement

icer a
ter ne is taken int
cust dy r deprived
his
reed m
acti n in any signi
icant ay
%( : (1) t remain silent (2) t c unsel and (3) t be in
rmed
rights
**ight t c unsel is intended t preclude the slightest c erci n as  uld lead
the accused t admit s mething
alse. "he layer sh uld never prevent the
accused
r m
reely and v luntarily speaking the truth (3e ple v. Payus )
"he rules n cust dial investigati ns d n t apply hen the c n
essi n is
made t a private individual because that situati n  uld n t be ne
a
cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. "aat)
"he presumpti n
regularity


icial acts d es n t apply t ³incust dy
c n
essi ns.´ 9n rder
r it t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh  that
the c nstituti nal sa
eguards ere bserved in btaining the c n
essi n.
(3e ple v. " lentin )


  

 ¯ ¯
.-¯ 3%#) %( 
 
 ¯ ¯¯
 ¯ ¯



¯
¯ 
   ¯3* /&%)

¯
 ¯

 
  Y u have a right t remain silent
  Anything y u say r d ill be used against y u in c urt

-Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
 Y u have a right t c nsult ith a layer and t have him during the
interr gati n.
9
y u are an indigent, a layer ill be app inted t represent y u.
. gven i
the pers n c nsents t anser questi ns ith ut the assistance

c unsel, the m ment he asks
r a layer at any p int in the investigati n,
the interr gati n must cease until an att rney is present.
 9
the
reg ing pr tecti ns and arnings are n t dem nstrated during the
trial t have been bserved by the pr secuti n, n evidence btained as a
result
the interr gati n can be used against him. (iranda v. Ariz na)
"hese rights bec me available hen the investigati n is n l nger a general
inquiry int an uns lved crime but has begun t
cus n a particular suspect,
the suspect has been taken int p lice cust dy, the p lice carry ut a pr cess

interr gati n that lends itsel
t eliciting incriminating statements; usually
a
ter a pers n has been taken int cust dy r therise deprived
his

reed m
acti n in any signi
icant ay.
phase, hen the enquiry is under the c ntr l
the p lice

icers.
Sec. 12(1) DOgS O" apply t pers ns under preliminary investigati n r
already charged in c urt ith a crime (pe ple v. Ays n)
0 
even a
ter the charges are
iled, i
the p lice still attempt t extract
c n
essi ns r admissi ns utside
judicial supervisi n, secti n 12(1) sh uld
still apply.
+%&%#.,
When petiti ner as identi
ied by the c mplainant at the p lice lineup, he
had n t been held yet t anser
r a criminal

ense. "he p lice lineup is
n t a part
the cust dial inquest; hence, he as n t yet entitled t c unsel.
"hus, it as held that hen the pr cess had n t yet shi
ted
r m the
investigat ry t the accusat ry as hen p lice investigati n d es n t elicit a
c n
essi n the accused may n t yet avail
the services
his layer.
Since petiti ner in the c urse
his 9denti
icati n in the p lice lineup had n t
yet been held t anser
r a criminal

ense, he as, there
re, n t deprived
¯ 
 

¯¯¯ (3. v. "an)
his right t be assisted by c unsel because the&&* ' pr cess had n t
1. A
ter a pers n has been taken int cust dy
2. When a pers n is therise deprived
his
reed m
acti n in any
signi
icant ay (3. v. Cagui a)
3. When the investigati n is being undertaken by the g vernment ith respect
t a criminal

ense. (9n 3. v.  rad , a baranggay captain¶s c nversati n
ith the accused is part
an ng ing investigati n. But in 3. v. Zuela,hen
the accused talked ith a may r AS COÃ9DA" and n t as a la en
rcement


icer, his admissi n is admissible)
4. Signing
arrest rep rt and b king sheets (3. v. Sim n)
n t until there is a p lice investigati n.
gx: a pers n g ing thr ugh an audit d es n t have these rights, a pers n
presenting himsel

r his admissi n (v luntary surrender), 3 lice line up
(unless there is a m ve t elicit admissi n), admissi n t s me ne n t a
public

icer (verbal c n
essi ns t a radi ann uncer)
**A 7438 has extended the C nstituti nal guarantee t situati ns in hich
an individual has n t been
rmally arrested but has merely been ³invited´
r
questi ning. (3e ple v. D mantay; 3e ple v. "an)

! 


 
!
yet set in.
While the C urt
inds n real need t a

rd a suspect the services
c unsel
during a p lice lineup, the m ment there is a m ve r even an urge
said
investigat rs t elicit admissi ns r c n
essi ns r even plain in
rmati n
hich may appear inn cent r inn cu us at the time,
r m said suspect, he
sh uld then and there be assisted by c unsel, unless he aives the right, but
the aiver shall be made in riting and in the presence
c unsel. (Úamb a
v. udge Cruz)
A pers n already under cust dial investigati n h is placed in a p lice lineup
is entitled t Secti n 12 rights. (3e ple v. acam)
As a rule, an accused is n t entitled t the assistance
c unsel in a p lice
lineup c nsidering that such is usually n t a part
the cust dial inquest.
H ever, the case at bar is di

erent inasmuch as accusedappellant  
+)' *#) &* )%+ %#" %(%# hen these ut
c urt
identi
icati ns ere c nducted by the p lice.
We have thus ruled that any identi
icati n
an unc unseled accused made in
a p lice lineup, r in a sh up
r that matter,

 
 

<  

 


 is inadmissible as evidence against him. H ever
 "he criminal pr cess includes the investigati n  
t the
iling
charges, the inadmissibility
these ut
c urt identi
icati ns d es n t render the in
the preliminary investigati n and investigati n a
ter charges are
iled, and the c urt identi
icati n
accusedappellant inadmissible
r being
ruits
the
peri d
r trial. "he rights under Secti n 12(1) ere c nceived
r the
irst p is n us tree. (3e ple v. gsc rdial)

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
0&,%# 
"he accused as c nvicted n the strength
the testim nies
3
eyeitnesses h p sitively identi
ied him as the gunman. H ever, he
vig r usly assails his ut
c urt identi
icati n by these eyeitnesses.
sing the t tality
circumstances test, the alleged irregularities cited by the
accused did n t result in his misidenti
icati n n r as he denied due pr cess.
"here is n thing r ng in Pein ¶s identi
icati n
the accused in an
un ccupied h use in à rbes 3ark. "he rec rds reveal that this m de as
res rted t by the auth rities
r security reas ns. "he Pein s re
used t have
the identi
icati n at the B9

ice as it as cramped ith pe ple and ith high
security risk. Pein ¶s
ear
r his sa
ety as n t irrati nal. He and his
c mpani ns had been sh t in c ld bl d in ne
the exclusive, supp sedly
sa
e subdivisi ns in the metr p lis.
"here is n hard and
ast rule as t the place here suspects are identi
ied by
5.m Signed r thumb marked.
 Advice
3 licepr vided c unsel, telling the accused that tit  uld be better

r him t speak r tell the truth d es n t
urnish any inducement, t render a
c n
essi n thereby btained   threats r pr mises are applied.
Úeneral ule: gxtrajudicial statements, as a rule, are admissible against their
respective declarants pursuant t the rule that the act, declarati n r missi n

a party as t a relevant
act may be given in evidence against him.
0 
the rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence nly against the
pers n making it, rec gnizes several excepti ns:
#+&2%#( #! %#  When several pe ple are charged ith an


ense, and there c uld have been O c llusi n beteen them regarding their
c n
essi ns, the
act that statements are in all material respects identical, is
c n
irmat ry
the c n
essi n
the c de
endants, and is )$% %/+
against ther pe ple implicated therein. "hey are als admissible as
itnesses. 9denti
icati n may be d ne in pen
ield. 9t is
ten d ne in
h spitals hile the crime and the criminal are still
resh in the mind
the
victim (3e ple v. "eehankee)
 0&,%#  (1) investigati n by an administrative b dy, (2)
the
sp ntane us statements, (3) audit examinati n, (4) n t in p lice cust dy, (5)
marked m ney, (6) b king sheets, (7) taking
pictures, (8) incidental t a
la
ul arrest, (9) b dy examinati n, (10) preliminary investigati n
 "he c nstituti nal right extends nly t testim nial c mpulsi n and n t hen
the b dy
the accused is pr p sed t be examined.
gx: para

in test
ahinay Case: has right t c mmunicate ith layer and
amily, has right t
aive any rights pr vided it is v luntary, kn ingly and intelligently
circumstantial evidence against the pers ns  
 t sh  the
pr bability
the latter¶s actual participati n in the c mmissi n
the crime.
9llegal C n
essi ns/Admissi ns are inadmissible against the s urce
the
c n
essi n B " they are admissible against the pers n   
c nstituti nal pr hibiti n.
9t is but natural
r ne h surrenders t the p lice t give reas n r
explanati n
r his act
surrendering. 9
he v luntarily admits the killing and
surrendered precisely because he anted t admit t the killing, the
c nstituti nal rights t be in
rmed
his right t silence and t c unsel may
n t be inv ked. (3e ple v. "aylaran)
%(/%#!$)!% %( 
"he right t be in
rmed must be presumed t c ntemplate the transmissi n

a meaning
ul in
rmati n rather than just the cerem nial and per
unct ry
*
1234
 
 


! © 

 
recitati n
an abstract c nstituti nal principle. "he

icer is n t nly duty

b und t tell the pers n the right the latter is entitled, but als t explain their
¯)$% %# ± acts, declarati ns r missi ns
the party as t a relevant
act. e

ects in practical terms. (3e ple v. am s, 3e ple v. Cagui a)
#! %# ± declarati n
the accused ackn ledging his guilt t the


ense charged, r any

ense necessarily included therein. "he right
a pers n t be in
rmed implies a c rrelative bligati n n the
part
the p lice investigat r t explain, and c ntemplates an e

ective
" be admissible: c mmunicati n that results in understanding hat is c nveyed. (3e ple v.
1.m C n
essi n must be v luntary, icandr ; 3e ple v. 3inlac)
2.m ade ith the assistance
c mpetent and independent c unsel,
3.m "he c n
essi n must be express, %($,##)#),#)#*# +
4.m 9t must be in riting, A layer is deemed engaged by the accused hen he(accused) never raised

-- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
any bjecti n against the layer¶s app intment.
"he accused may reject the c unsel ch sen
r him and ask
r an ther ne
When the accused ³never raised any bjecti n against the layer¶s
app intment during the c urse
the investigati n and the accused therea
ter
subscribes t the veracity
his statement be
re the searing

icer, the
accused may n  be deemed t have engaged the layer pr vided by the
investigat rs. (3e ple v. erez; 3e ple v. Suarez)
"he c urt, during trial, is n t duty b und t appraise the accused that he has
the right t remain silent. 9t is c unsel that sh uld claim the right
r him. 9

 Only re
ers t extrajudicial c n
essi n r admissi n made during cust dial
investigati n, evidence gathered ith ut c unsel is admissible.
gx: accused    ut here the murder eap n is ith ut c unsel
admissible. But i
evidence is
und thr ugh an extrajudicial c n
essi n
ith ut C unsel inadmissible
à r in cust dy c n
essi ns t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh  that
the c nstituti nal sa
eguards ere bserved in btaining the c n
essi n.
(agt t v. anguera)
9n
racti ns
the ³iranda ights´ render inadmissible ³ nly the extrajudicial
c unsel d es n t claim the right and calls the accused t the itness stand,
then he aives the right t be silent. (3e ple v. "ampus)
Wh are n t independent c unsel:
a.m Special c unsel, public r private pr secut r, c unsel
the
p lice, r a municipal att rney h se interest is adverse t that

the accused. (3e ple v. Ãabr )
b.m A ay r (3e ple v. "alman)
c.m A baranggay captain (3e ple v. " maquin)
d.m Any ther h se interest may be adverse t that
the accused
!!&%"#)%(%+#&*# +)!%#)
"he right t c unsel as denied Sunga during his executi n
gxhibit ³A´
admissi n be
re the p lice n the gr und that the c unsel h assisted him,
Att. Agustin  cam ra, as the City Pegal O

icer
3uert 3incesa.


 © r 
made during the cust dial investigati n. "he
admissibility
ther evidence, pr vided they are relevant t the issue and is
n t therise excluded by la r rules, is n t a

ected even i
btained r
taken in the c urse
cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. alimit)
Where a bl dstained kni
e is
und as a c nsequence
unc unseled
extrajudicial c n
essi n, the kni
e is inadmissible as evidence because it is the

ruit
a c nstituti nally in
irm interr gati n. (Abale v. 3e ple)
What the C nstituti n pr hibits is the use
physical r m ral c mpulsi n t
ext rt c mmunicati n
r m the accused, but n t an inclusi n
his b dy in
evidence hen it may be material. (Úutang v. 3e ple: n the admissibility

urine samples as evidence)
ay a receipt
r pr perty seized 



 






   be admissible in evidence against him?  , this is tantam unt t
"he right t c unsel inv lves m re than just the presence
a layer in the
c urtr m r the mere pr p unding
standard questi ns and bjecti ns;
rather it means an e

icient and decisive legal assistance and n t a simple
per
unct ry representati n.(3e ple v. Sunga)
%"! %( 
+!.#&%$%#%#
 ust be d ne in riting and in the presence
c unsel.
 "he state must bring the pers n t a place here there is a layer
When the accused stated that that he needed n c unsel, that he as g ing t
tell the truth, and did n t ask
r a layer, his c n
essi n is inadmissible. "he
auth rities
ailed t apprise him
his right t c unsel hen he r te the
c n
essi n. An accused¶s aiver
his rights and signi
icati n
illingness t
make a c n
essi n are cerem nies that require the presence
c unsel.
( rales v.  ncupa; 3e ple v. Úalit; Demaisip v. CA)
 questi ned, alth ugh that pers n did n t inv ke his right against sel

¯)$% %/+#)#)$% %/+"%)#&
-r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
an extrajudicial c n
essi n.
Signature in a b king sheet and arrest rep rt O" an admissi n
guilt;
nly pr ves the
act
the arrest.
$$*#%'(%# 
"he right n t t be c mpelled t be a itness against himsel
may be inv ked
n t nly in criminal pr ceedings but als in all ther types
suits, including

r
eiture cases. What is c ntr lling is n t the character
the suit but the
nature
the pr ceedings. Sh uld a pers n be c mpelled t be a itness
against himsel
, that pers n sh uld be pr vided ith immunity immunity

r m using the itness¶ c mpelled testim ny and its
ruits in any manner in
c nnecti n ith the criminal pr secuti n
the itness and immunity t the
itness
r m pr secuti n
r an

ense t hich his c mpelled testim ny
relates. 9
a pers n h testi
ied is n t

ered immunity be
re they ere
incriminati n in such pr ceeding, his testim ny  uld be inadmissible as
1A 2010
m

evidence. (Úalman v. 3amaran)

"here is #c nstituti nal right t bail hen the
ll ing c nditi ns c ncur:
&%#5859*!&"%+#&%#%$%)%#K 1.m Accused is charge ith an

ense punishable by 

3r hibited because they vitiate truth and assault the dignity
the pers n. 2.m gvidence against him is str ng. (agn v Abbas)
 ** A
ter c nvicti n, bail is  
hile the case is n appeal

   ¯   7

  ¯  


   ** gven th ugh there is n c nstituti nal right, bail may still be granted
 ¯      
¯  
 
 because the matter is discreti nary ith the c urt
r g d and valid reas ns,
 
 ¯ 
  
   ¯¯   



  

 
 





  
    ¯    6¯ ¯  3¯

 ¯
 

¯ ¯
3¯  Since the l ss
right (t bail) depends up n the quantum
evidence against
 
  

  

 ¯¯       him, the l ss
the right can be determined 

©

   (arc s v.
 7 ¯ ¯
   Cruz)

%+ ± m de sh rt
c n
inement hich  uld, ith reas nable certainty, 0)%%#  .
insure the attendance
the accused at his trial; takes the
rm
a dep sit
On December 10, 1948, the  Úeneral Assembly ad pted the niversal
m ney r its equivalent as a guarantee
attendance. Ãailure t appear  uld Declarati n
Human ights in hich the right t li
e, liberty and all the ther

r
eit the dep sit.
undamental rights
every pers n ere pr claimed. "hus, in ej

v.
Direct r
3ris ns,  %#(#%#(/%+, ,&%"),
*,  +)*#)# %*%#,%#&%,+  !%#
1.m " h n r the presumpti n
inn cence until his guilt is pr ve bey nd &+%#,!+!+#)
reas nable d ubt
2.m " enable him t prepare hi de
enses ith ut being subject t punishment 9
bail can be granted in dep rtati n cases, e see n justi
icati n hy it
pri r t c nvicti n. (C rtes v. Catral) sh uld n t als be all ed in extraditi n cases. Pikeise, c nsidering that 
 ,,+% ),%#&  % # #'%&##
Bail has neither   n r  
  purp se. (Almeda v. aillaluz) /%#"2)%#0)%%#&  . A
ter all, b th are administrative
pr ceedings here the inn cence r guilt
the pers n detained is n t in
 Available t all pers ns detained, unless

ense is punishable by eclusi n issue.
3erpetua r Death hen the evidence against the accused is str ng (Bail is a
matter
discreti n
the c urts, s even pers ns h are n t entitled CA Obvi usly, an extraditi n pr ceeding, hile stensibly administrative, bears all
be granted bail) earmarks
a criminal pr cess. ¯,#%+0)%$'/ */>&)
 ,+#() %#!+%/'#)!&)# !
As a necessary c nsequence
the nature
a bail b nd, a pers n admitted t )$#)%#( !++%#(,&)%#( ³"emp rary detenti n´ may
bail may be prevented by the c urt
r m leaving the c untry. A bail b nd is be a necessary step in the pr cess
extraditi n, but the length
time
the
intended t make a pers n available anytime he is needed by the c urt. detenti n sh uld be reas nable. ec rds sh  that un z )/#
(an t c, r. v. CA) )%#)!"859' %*"%#(/#&#"%&)!
 #'&%$
9mp sing bail in excessive am unt c uld render meaningless the right t bail.
Setting the ball in the am unt
the civil liability is excessive. (Yap v. CA) "he timeh n red principle
 
 
  demands that the
3hilippines h n r its bligati ns under the gxtraditi n "reaty it entered int
 ith the H ng K ng Special Administrative egi n. H ever, it d es n t
%$%%# #%(/%+ necessarily mean that in keeping ith its treaty bligati ns, the 3hilippines
(1) pers n claiming the right must be under actual detenti n; sh uld diminish a p tential extraditee¶s rights t li
e, liberty, and due pr cess.
(2) Úenerally, the right is available nly t criminal cases  re s , here these rights are guaranteed als by internati nal c nventi ns,
*** Bail d es n t grant the right t leave the c untry. t hich the 3hilippines is a party. We sh uld n t deprive an extraditee
his

-‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
right t apply
r bail, pr vided that a certain standard
r the grant is
satis
act rily met. (Ú vernment
HK v. Olalia)
**gxtraditi n is

a criminal pr ceeding. Hence, since bail is available nly in
criminal pr ceedings, a resp ndent in an extraditi n pr ceeding is n t entitled
t bail. He sh uld apply
r bail in the c urt here he ill be tried. ( nited
States v. udge 3uruganan, 2002)
 judgement t the c nclusi n that the

ense has been c mmitted as
& )$%#%#(/%+
1.m Ability t p st bail
2.m ature
the

ense
3.m imp sable penalty,
4.m character and reputati n
the accused,
5.m health
the accused,
6.m strength
the evidence,
7.m pr bability
appearing
r the trial,
8.m
r
eiture
b nds,
9.m hether accused as a
ugitive hen arrested,
10.m 9
under b nd in an ther case. (Sunga v. udge Salud)
 questi ns as  uld ascertain the strength
the state¶s evidence r judge the
3%+%'*#)*3 ++.A s ldier under c urt martial d es n t enj y
the right t bail because
the disciplinary structure
the military and
because s ldiers are all ed the
iduciary right t bear arms and can cause
great hav c. Ãurtherm re, traditi n has rec gnized the n nexistence
the
right t bail. gqual pr tecti n cann t be inv ked because it nly applies t
th se h are equally situated. (C mmendad r v. de ailla)
 appearance
0& %"%+.Where the right t bail exists, it sh uld n t be rendered
nugat ry by requiring a sum that is excessive. 9
the C nstituti n did n t
pr hibit his, the right t bail bec mes meaningless. "he s le permissible

uncti n
m ney bail is t assure the accused's presence at trial, and

  - 89   

present evidence
3) Decide i
the evidence
guilt is str ng
4) 9
the evidence is n t str ng, grant bail (Basc v. apatal )
(gvidence is str ng hen there is evident guilt r a great presumpti n
guilt)

!"%)#E, *$,%#(
0m Clear, str ng evidence hich leads a ellguarded dispassi nate
charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he ill pr bably be
punished capitally i
the la is administered
0m Str ng, clear, and c nvincing t an unbiased judgment and excludes all
reas nable pr bability
any ther c nclusi n.
0m "est is n t hether the evidence establishes guilt bey nd reas nable
d ubt but rather hether it sh s evident guilt r a great presumpti n

guilt. (3e ple v. udge Cabral)
# &*%#) #, #"%)#&
gven hen the pr secut r re
uses t adduce evidence in pp siti n t the
applicati n t grant and
ix bail, the c urt may ask the pr secuti n such
adequacy
the am unt
bail. (" lentin v. udge Camana , r.)

&(#%=#& ± A means, aside
r m bail, here an accused may btain
pr visi nal liberty.
9t is an bligati n
rec rd entered int be
re a c urt guaranteeing the
the accused
r trial. 9t is in the nature
a c ntract beteen
the surety and the State. (3e ple v. Abner)


¯  
 ¯
 
 ¯
declared that bail set at a higher
igure than an am unt reas nably calculated  3¯

 
 
  
¯
t
ul
ill thus purp se is "excessive"(De Pa Camara v. gnage) 859  ¯  3¯  
  
 ¯  ¯ 
  3  


 
¯    ¯ ¯
A judge cann t require a strictly cash b nd and disall  an attempt t p st a - 
 

  ¯   3 
 ¯   
 
surety b nd
r pr visi nal liberty. "he burden imp sed by requiring a strictly 
3

 ¯
  ¯ ¯ 

 ¯ ¯
 
cash b nd can make the bail c nstituti nally ³excessive.´ (Almeda v. aillaluz) ¯¯
 3
 ¯ ¯  3¯
¯ ¯ 
¯

3


  
¯

¯¯
¯ 3 
m "he accused must inv ke such right then bail hearing ill c mmence   
  
 ¯

¯
 
   ¯


ll ing due pr cess  
 
     ¯
    ¯

 
¯ ¯3

¯ 3¯   


¯

*% !
%+-*)(%##¯,,+%&%#!%+ ¯ 

 ¯   
¯
  ¯   
1)  ti
y the pr secut r
the hearing
r bail 

¯ 
¯ 
¯¯  -

¯
2) C nduct a hearing
r such applicati n, even i
pr secuti n d es n t 

-  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

¯ %( !¯&&* ) Due pr cess
la demands that in all criminal pr secuti ns (here the
*&  accused stands t l se either his li
e r his liberty), the accused shall be
m A judge may replace an ther judge in rendering decisi n even i
he nly entitled t , am ng thers, a trial. "he trial c ntemplated by the due pr cess
partially heard the testim ny
the itnesses clause
the C nstituti n, in relati n t the Charter as a h le, is a trial by
m "he replacement judge may base his judgment c mpletely n c ld rec rd udicial 3r cess, n t by executive r military pr cess. ilitary C mmissi ns r
be
re him, in the same manner appellate c urts d . (3e ple v. araj s) "ribunals, by hatever name they are called, are n t c urts ithin the
m Since administrative agencies are n t b und t
ll  the rules
criminal 3hilippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. ilitary)
pr cedure, they may n t imp se criminal penalties. (Sc ty¶s Department
St re v. icaller)  *$,%#!##&#&
m ³due pr cess´ = that pr cedure established by la t
ully pr tect li
e,  With ut c nvicti n, a pers n is entitled t reinstatement.
liberty, and pr perty
the citizens
the State. (uňez v.
Sandiganbayan) B3 52: ³"he
iling
charges
r the c mmissi n
such crimes be
re a civil
c urt
military tribunal a
ter preliminary investigati n shall be 
© 
.%(#$#)*% !-*)( evidence
such
act (disquali
icati n)´ is invalid because the 
© 

1.m 9n
rm right t c unsel be
re arraignment evidence makes the accused su

er as i
already guilty even be
re trial.
2.m Ask i
he desires aid
c unsel (Dumla v. C melec)
3.m Úrant reas nable time t d s
4.m 9
n ne, c urt assigns a de

ici 3reventive suspensi n is n t a penalty there
re n vi lati n
right t be
presumed inn cent
3%+%'
%/*#+
 SC, generally, has n supervis ry auth rity ver military c urts. (Kur da v.  "here are s me cases in hich prima
acie evidence establishes a rati nal
aland ni) c nnecti n t guilt.
i.e. 9n alversati n, inability t pr duce the m ney entrusted t public

icial,
But by virtue
"he ati nal Security C de (3D 1498), the SC d es n t alth ugh prima
acie evidence
guilt, may still be dispr ved by c ntradict ry
revie decisi ns
military c mmissi ns but
the C urt
ilitary Appeals in evidence (shi
ts the burden
pr
t the accused)
cases appealed t the later by military c mmissi ns. (Buscayn & Sis n v. 
ilitary C mmissi ns) "he State, having the right t declare hich acts are criminal, ithin certain
ellde
ined limitati ns, has the right t speci
y hat act(s) shall c nstitute a
 ilitary "ribunals cann t try civilians, even i
civil c urts are cl sed during crime, as ell as hat pr
shall c nstitute prima
acie evidence
guilt, and
artial Pa. Civilians are entitled t udicial pr cess. ilitary "ribunals bel ng then t put up n the de
endant the burden
sh ing that such act(s) are
t the gxecutive department. (Olaguer v. ilitary C mmissi n) inn cent and are n t c mmitted ith any criminal intent r intenti n. ( S v.
Puling)
 Once jurisdicti n is acquired, a pers n h is dr pped
r m the military can
still be tried by military tribunals. urisdicti n, nce acquired, is n t l st up n "he pr visi n
the glecti n C de that the
iling
charges
r the
the instance
the parties but c ntinue until terminati n
the case. (Abadilla c mmissi n
crimes be
re a civil r military c urt shall be prima
acie
v. am s) evidence
the c mmissi n
an act
disl yalty t the state is  , as it
c ndemns a pers n be
re he is
inally heard. (Dumla v. C melec)
a military c mmissi n r tribunal cann t try and exercise jurisdicti n, even
during the peri d
martial la, ver civilians
r

enses allegedly "he presumpti n
inn cence may be verc me by a c ntrary presumpti n
c mmitted by them as l ng as the civil c urts are pen and
uncti ning, and
unded up n the experience
human c nduct. Pegislature may pr vide
e
that any judgment rendered by such b dy relating t a civilian is null and v id 
© 
evidence
guilt
the accused and shi
t the burden
pr


r lack
jurisdicti n n the part
the military tribunal c ncerned. (Olaguer pr vided there be a rati nal c nnecti n beteen the
acts pr vided and the
v. ilitary C mmissi n) ultimate
act presumed. (3e ple v. ing a; Banares v. CA)

-ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

%(/) Sten graphic n tes sh ing that the c urts
ailed t

er c unsel t the
+$# !%(/) accused is n t en ugh t verturn a c nvicti n. "he presumpti n is that the
1.m " be present at the trial c urts
ll ed pr per pr cedure.
2.m ight t c unsel
3.m ight t an impartial judge "he right t c unsel is necessary and indispensable:
4.m ight t c n
r ntati n  During Cust dial 9nvestigati n t prevent the use
duress and ther undue
5.m ight t c mpuls ry pr cess t secure attendance
itness in
luence in extracting c n
essi ns.
  gven a
ter the c nvicti n
the accused; even hen the case is n appeal.
%(/, #.
%+%#¯/ #%  When accused gives a quali
ied plea.
Sc pe
right t be present at the trial ± beteen arraignment and  When a s rn statement as extracted
r m the accused.
pr mulgati n
sentence (3e ple v. H lgad )
C nditi n
r aiver ± a
ter arraignment, he may be c mpelled t appear
r
identi
icati n Duties imp sed n the judge by this right:
9
the de
endant appears ith ut c unsel he must be in
rmed by the c urt
1*% % !
%+%#¯/ #% that he has a right t have c unsel be
re being arraigned, and must be asked
1.m Accused already arraigned i
he desires the aid
c unsel. 9
he desires and is unable t empl y c unsel
2.m Duly n ti
ied
the trial the c urt must assign c unsel t de
end him. "his is a right hich the
3.m Ãailure t appear is unjusti
iable de
endant sh uld n t be deprived
, and the
ailure
the c urt t assign
(3arada v. aeneraci n) c unsel r, a
ter c unsel has been assigned, t require him t per
rm this
 duty by appearing and de
ending the accused  uld be su

icient cause
r the
C nstituti n n  unquali
iedly permits trial in absentia even
capital reversal
the case. (3e ple v. Úimen )


enses, pr vided that (1) ©
   




 

 

© 

 
©
9 © 



 
©

  

ight t c unsel is right t & © c unsel. (eaning member
the Bar)
 
(2)

 & ©




 
©

   
 








©  


 

 . 3rearraignment duties
the udge
eas n
r requiring the presence
the accused, despite his aiver, is, i
1.m t in
rm the accused that he has the right t have his n c unsel
all ed t be absent in all the stages
the pr ceedings ith ut giving the be
re being arraigned;
3e ple's itnesses the pp rtunity t 9denti
y him in c urt, he may in his 2.m a
ter giving such in
rmati n, t ask accused hether he desires the aid
de
ense say that he as never 9denti
ied as the pers n charged in the
c unsel;
in
rmati n and, there
re, is entitled t an acquittal. (3e ple v. 3residing 3.m i
he s desires t pr cure the services
c unsel, the c urt must grant
udge) him reas nable time t d s ; and
 4.m i
he s desires t have c unsel but is unable t empl y ne, the c urt
* 

 
the accused in case
his n nappearance a
ter must assign c unsel 
© t de
end him. (3e ple v. Agbayani)
arraignment despite due n tice simply means that he thereby aives his right
t meet the itnesses
ace t
ace, am ng thers. An express aiver
"he duty t app int a c unsel 
©
is mandat ry nly t the time

appearance a
ter arraignment is
the same e

ect. H ever, such aiver
arraignment.  such duty exists here the accused has pr ceeded t
appearance and trial in absentia d es n t mean that the pr secuti n is arraignment and then trial ith a c unsel
his n ch ice. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
thereby deprived
its right t require the presence
the accused
r
purp ses
identi
icati n by its itnesses, hich is vital
r the c nvicti n
At m st, the app intment
a c unsel

© in a situati n like the present
the accused. (Carred v. 3e ple) case [c unsel 
 
c nsistently
ailed t appear
r cr ss examinati n]
 uld be discreti nary ith the trial c urt, hich discreti n ill n t be
inter
ered ith in the absence
grave abuse. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
%(*# +
C unsel de O

ici  may be given by the c urts during arraignment. "here is n denial
the right t c unsel hen a c unsel 
© as

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
app inted during the absence
the accused¶s c unsel 
 
(3e ple v.
Parraňaga)
An accused h s ught t ithdra his appeal t the SC sh uld n t be
all ed n the gr und that he cann t a

rd c unsel. He sh uld be given
charging simple rebelli n. "he c mplaint
petiti ner¶s c unsel that he is
charged ith a crime that d es n t exist in the statute b ks, hile technically
c rrect s
ar as the c urt has ruled that rebelli n may n t be c mplexed ith
ther

enses c mmitted n the ccasi n there
, must there
re be
dismissed as a mere
light
rhet ric. "he in
rmati n d es indeed charge the
c unsel 
©
instead. (3e ple v. i )
%(/#!$)
"he bject
a ritten accusati n
1.m Ãurnish the accused ith such a descripti n
the charge against him
as ill enable him t make a de
ense.
2.m Avail himsel

his c nvicti n r acquittal
r pr tecti n against

urther pr secuti n
r the same cause.
3.m " in
rm the c urt
the
acts alleged, s that it may decide
hether they are su

icient in la t supp rt a c nvicti n, i
ne
sh uld be had. ( .S. v. Karelsen)
m 9n rder that this requirement be satis
ied,
acts must be stated, n t
c nclusi ns
la. "he C mplaint must c ntain a speci
ic allegati n

every
act and circumstance necessary t c nstitute the crime charged
( S v. Karelsen)
Criminal in
rmati n must c ntain:
1.m name
the accused,
2.m designati n given t the

ense by the statute,
,)'
%+
3.m acts r missi n d ne c nstituting the

ense,
4.m ame
the

ended party,
5.m Appr ximate time and date
the c mmissi n
the

ense
6.m "he place
the c mmissi n
the

ense. (3e ple v. Quitl ng)
!!# #¯++()%##!$%#
 A pers n cann t be charged m re than that c ntained in the in
rmati n.
Quali
ying circumstances must be alleged in the in
rmati n as ell.
i.e. nly 2 c unts
rape ere alleged in the charges. Alth ugh 6 c unts

rape ere pr ven during trial, the accused can nly be c nvicted n the 2
c unts alleged in the in
rmati n.
 attaches)
"he appellant cann t be c nvicted
the c mplex crime
h micide ith
assault up n an agent
a pers n in auth rity because the in
rmati n
iled
against the appellant 


 the essential elements
assault that the
accused then kne that, be
re r at the time
the c mmissi n
the
assault, the victim as an agent
the pers n in auth rity. (3e ple v. egala)
Disregarding the bjecti nable phrasing that  uld c mplex rebelli n ith
murder and multiple
rustrated murder, that indictment is t be read as
r
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
petiti ner ith a crime de
ined and punished by the evised 3enal C de:
simple rebelli n. (gnrile v. Salazar)
An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296
the 3C may be c nvicted
under Art 335 pr vided that the in
rmati n alleges
acts under Art. 335. the
real questi n r issue is hether r n t he per
rmed the acts alleged in the
in
rmati n in the manner therein set
rth. 9
he did, it is
n c nsequence
t him, either as a matter
pr cedure r
substantive right, h  the la
den minates the crime hich th se acts c nstitute. (3e ple v. Pabad )
An accused charged ith nly ne

ense
rape may n t be c nvicted
six
c unts
rape. He cann t be held liable
r m re than hat he as charged
ith. (3e ple v. anid )
Date and time
the O

ense: A pers n need n t speci
y the exact time
the
c mmissi n
the

ense  
time is an essential element
that

ense.
appr ximati n su

iciently meets the requirement
la.
%(
glements t be c nsidered:
1.m Pength
delay
2.m eas n
r delay
3.m "he e

rt
the de
endant t assert his right
4.m 3rejudice caused t the de
endant
Speedy Disp siti n: 9s usually relative t the circumstances
the particular
case. C unting
)+' ©
iling
the in
rmati n
O"g: Dismissal n the gr unds
speedy trial is the same as an acquittal
and is a bar t an ther pr secuti n
r the same

ense (D uble e pardy
Speedy trial means ne that can be had as s n a
ter indictment is
iled as the
pr secuti n can ith reas nable diligence prepare
r trial.
m Pength
delay is certainly a
act r t c nsider; but ther
act rs must
als be c nsidered such as the  #
r the delay, !!
the
de
endant t assert his right, and the ,>*)%& caused the de
endant.
"he right
an accused t speedy trial sh uld n t be utilized t deprive the
1A 2010
m

State
a reas nable pp rtunity

airly indicting criminals. (3e ple v.
Úines)
elie
in 3 stp nements ith ut g d causeWhere a pr secuting

icer,
ith ut g d cause, secures p stp nements
the trial
a de
endant against
his pr test bey nd a reas nable peri d
time, the accused is entitled t relie

by a pr ceeding in    t c mpel a dismissal
the in
rmati n, r i

3urp se
right t c n
r ntati n:
1.m A

rd the accused an pp rtunity t test the testim ny
the itness by
cr ssexaminati n
2.m
r the judge t bserve the dep rtati n
the itness.
gxcepti n t right
c n
r ntati n: (1) dying declarati n (2) trial in absentia
O"g: ight t C n
r ntati n is n t available in preliminary investigati n.
he be restrained
his liberty, by   
 
t btain his
reed m. (C nde
v. ivera)
%($,%+
%+
"rial by 3ublicity " have prejudice t due pr cess, there must be allegati n
and pr
that judges have been duly in
luenced by the publicity.
" arrant a
inding
prejudicial publicity, there must be 


 ©
pr vide that i
the plainti

has n evidence t pr ve his claim, the de
endant
that the judges have been unduly in
luenced, n t simply that they might be,
by the barrage
publicity. 3etiti ners cann t rely n the subliminal e

ects

publicity. (Webb v. de Pe n; 3e ple v. "eehankee)
 e

ectively deprives a litigant
his right t due pr cess. 9t denies ap arty his
Outside
pecuniary interest, relati nship, r previ us participati n in the
matter that calls
r adjudicati n, there may be ther causes that c uld
c nceivably er de the trait
bjectivity, thus calling
r   . 9
any such
sh uld make its appearance and pr ve di

icult t resist, the better c urse
r
a judge is t & ©

himsel
. (ate r. v. aillaluz) $,*+ '& 
9t is
ttimes expedient r necessary in the due and
aith
ul administrati n

justice
r the presiding judge t reexamine a itness in rder that his
judgment hen rendered may rest up n a
ull and clear understanding
the

acts. (3e ple v. anal : hen a judge intervened in the cr ssexaminati n)
%(*/+%&
%+

and    
submitted his c n
essi n and  



"rial is public hen attendance is pen t all irrespective
relati nship t
mani
ested that he as n t interested in having a layer
de
endant.
0 
hen the evidence presented may be characterized as

ensive t
decency r public m rals, the pr ceeding may be limited t
riends, relatives
m Accused is n t entitled as a matter
right t be present during the
preliminary examinati n n r t cr ssexamine the itnesses presented
against him be
re his arrest
m "his right is available during trial hich nly begins up n arraignment
m there is n right t c n
r ntati n against in
rmants h aided in the
arrest r in
rmants h are n t itnesses

Secti n 7
the Special ules
3r cedure prescribed
r Sharia¶s c urts
shall take an ath and judgment shall be rendered in his
av r by the C urt.
Sh uld de
endant re
use t take an ath, plainti

can a

irm his claim under
ath, in hich case judgment shall be rendered in his
av r. Said pr visi n
right t c n
r nt the itness against him and t cr ssexamine them. 9t
sh uld have n place even in the Special ules
3r cedure in the Shari¶ah
c urts
the c untry. ("ampar v. sman)
m C mpuls ry pr cess is n t nly t ³secure the attendance
itnesses in
his behal
´ but als t ³secure the pr ducti n
evidence in his behal
.´
%"! %( 
m 3resumpti n is alays against the aiver
m 3r secuti n must pr ve ith str ngly c nvincing evidence that the
accused 

 
assist him during the taking
that c n
essi n. (3e ple v. ara)


 r
 

 

¯¯
 

¯
and c unsel. (Úarcia v. D ming ) 
 

 7
  ¯


 ¯
    

¯

  


"his right serves as a sa
eguard against any attempt t empl y ur c urt as 
instruments
persecuti n. "he kn ledge that every criminal trial is subject m Writ
Habeas C rpus ± rit directed t the pers n detaining an ther
t c ntemp rane us revie in the
rum
public pini n is an e

ective c mmanding him t pr duce the b dy
the pris ner at a designated
restraint n p ssible abuse
judicial p er. (Úarcia v. D ming ) time and place, ith the day and cause
his capti n and detenti n, t
d , submit t , and receive hatever the c urt r judge aarding the rit
%( .0$%#L$%# !&..!& shall c nsider in that behal

r6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

 "here must be a deprivati n
pers nal liberty t begin ith. aived. 9t must there
re be asserted. "hus, i
there as a delay in the trial
m 3rivilege
the rit
habeas c rpus ± right t have an immediate
the case, petiti ners are n t entirely ith ut blame.
determinati n
the legality
the deprivati n
physical liberty.
m "he  is never suspended, it is the privilege
the rit that may be Ãurtherm re, the right
an accused t a speedy trial is guaranteed t him by
suspended. the C nstituti n but the same shall n t be utilized t deprive the State
a
 reas nable pp rtunity

airly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights
1*% % !
* ,# %#!%"%+( sh uld n t  rk against and preclude the pe ple's equally imp rtant right t
1.m gxistence
Actual invasi n r ebelli n public justice. (Úuiani v. Sandiganbayan)
2.m 3ublic Sa
ety requires the suspensi n
(d es n t c me ith suspensi n
Bail) 
0m "he 3resident has the p er t suspend the privilege, subject t the limits

  ?   

¯   3
  ¯ 



in Article a99, sec. 18 ¯¯

3


3urp se: " prevent perjury and c n
essi n under duress.
A resp ndent in a petiti n
r   
  have the burden t pr ve that
they had indeed released the detainees i
their inv king it as their de
ense. 9
¯*#(%# 
+!.#&%$%#%#
the resp ndents have n t satis
ied the burden, the case must be re
erred t m When is a questi n incriminating?
the CH. (Diz n v. gduard ) Mm A crime may c ntain t r m re elements, a questi n  uld be
 incriminating i
it tends t establish even ne
the elements


  ‰ ¯ 


¯ ¯
 

 ¯
 Mm "esti
ying t a
act hich  uld be a necessary link in a chain




 

  ¯

 
 ¯ -¯ ¯
. evidence t pr ve the c mmissi n
the crime
-¯ ¯3

¯
 

 m
m 
 Speedy trial in Secti n 14 c vers nly the trial phase
criminal
cases hereas
&%# ‰ &"  ++ ,   ! #' >*)%&%+ 1* %.
>*)%&%+)$%#% %",&)%#(
m emedy i
there has been unreas nable delay in the res luti n
a case:
Dismissal thr ugh mandamus ( que v. Ombudsman)
9n the applicati n
the c nstituti nal guaranty
the right t speedy
disp siti n
cases, particular regard must be taken
the
acts and
circumstances peculiar t each case. Wellsettled is the rule that the right t a
speedy disp siti n
cases, like the right t a speedy trial, is deemed vi lated
nly hen the pr ceeding is attended by vexati us, caprici us, and ppressive
delay. 9n the determinati n
hether r n t that right has been vi lated,
the
act rs that may be c nsidered and balanced are: the length
delay, the
reas ns
r such delay, the asserti n r
ailure t assert such right by the
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
"he c ncept
³speedy disp siti n
cases´ is
lexible and is c nsistent ith
 #/+ delay. (Caballer v. Al
ns , r.)
"he right t a speedy trial as ell as ther rights c n
erred by the C nstituti n
r statute, except hen therise expressly s pr vided by la, may be
rÆ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
ight applies nly t testim nial c mpulsi n, n t bject evidence (ailla
l r
v. Summers)
m One may n t be c mpelled t pr duce a sample
his riting as evidence
since it is s mething m re than a m ving b dy but als requires
applicati n
intelligence and attenti n (Beltran v. Sams n)
D cumentary gvidence:
 C mpuls ry pr ducti n
private b ks and d cuments
the ner is
c mpelling him t be a itness against himsel
.
 "he privilege hich exists as t private papers, cann t be maintained in
relati n t rec rds required by la t be kept in rder that there may be
suitable in
rmati n
transacti ns hich are the appr priate subjects

g vernmental regulati n and the en
rcement
restricti ns validly
established.
m Only natural pers ns are pr tected by this right; juridical entities, like
c rp rati ns, are n t.
m Stage hen right against sel
incriminati n may be asserted:
r m the
m ment he is asked t testi
y.
1A 2010
m

State Witness/ Accused Ordinary Witness incriminati n. (Cabal v. Kapunan, r.)

Criminal Case He may re
use t take the
"he right against sel
incriminati n extends even t administrative pr ceedings
itness stand during the trial r
hich p ssess a criminal r penal aspect. (3ascual r. v. B ard
edical
cust dial investigati n.
He may n t re
use gxaminers)
9
n trial, ne may re
use t
t take the itness
anser
stand. ight against sel
incriminati n can nly be inv ked in penal/criminal
Civil Case He may n t re
use t take the
pr ceedings. 9t cann t be inv ked in a Pegislative 9nquiry. (Standard
itness stand.
He may re
use t Chartered v. Senate)
He may re
use t anser
anser an
incriminating questi n.
incriminating 
Administrative He may re
use t take the
questi n

 @
Case itness stand i
it is criminal in
89   

¯  
¯
  ¯

 

nature like
r
eiture r
 
¯

¯¯
 ¯
 

dep rtati n
859  
¯ 
 
¯
3
¯7

7

¯
¯
3

¯ 3
¯

¯ ¯
A penal la that pr vides
r a higher penalty against the accused h re
uses
t testi
y r make statements that  uld be tantam unt t an admissi n

guilt vi lates the right against sel
incriminati n. "he accused has a right t
rely n the presumpti n
inn cence until pr secuti n pr ves the elements

the crime charged against him. Silence cann t be taken as pr
against him.
( S v. avarr )
What is pr hibited by the c nstituti nal guarantee is the use
physical r
m ral c mpulsi n t ext rt c mmunicati n
r m the itness, n t an inclusi n

his b dy in evide hen it is material. "hus, substance emitting
r m the
b dy
the de
endant can be received as evidence. ( S v. "an "eng; S. vs.
Ong; ailla
l r v. Summers; S v. Ong SiuH ng)
A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, bl d test, disease test d es n t
all
under the pr hibiti n against sel
incriminati n.

  G 89 7



 


9nv luntary Servitude ± every c nditi n
en
rced r c mpuls ry service

ne t an ther n matter under hat
rm such servitude may be
disguised.
0&,%#  (1) i
such is punishment here the party is c nvicted, (2) in
the interest
nati nal de
ense, citizens may be c mpelled t render
pers nal military r civil service, (3) a return t  rk rder, (4)
merchants and marines c mpelled t remain until the end
v yage, (5)
a p sse c mitatus ± a male at a certain age may be validly pressed int
service
r the apprehensi n
criminals thr ugh legitimate exercise

p lice p er, (6) parental auth rity
¯ 
  3
  
Writing is n t a purely mechanical act, because it requires the applicati n
  ¯ 3¯
3



 
intelligence and attenti n, there
re, it c nstitutes an evidence against the
¯ ¯
 ¯
  3
 


  3
accused. gvidence that requires a p sitive intelligent act
r m the accused
alls ¯

    
  3

   

  

under the right against sel
incriminati n. (Beltran v. Sams n; Bermudez v.

¯ ¯
¯
¯ ¯ 3

¯ 
Castill )
 
  
¯
859
 3 3

 
¯ 
  ¯ 
C mpelling a itnessaccused t take the stand is a vi lati n
his right  ¯
3
¯¯

¯ 
  
¯ 
against sel
incriminati n. His testim ny may n t be admissible against him.
 
 


¯¯   ¯¯
 ¯
¯


(Chavez v. CA, the à rd "hunderbird case)  
3¯ 
 

¯¯

¯
C mpelling the accused in an Antigra
t pr ceeding t take the stand
r the ¯0& %"!%# 
pr secuti n against him against his ill is a vi lati n
his right against sel
 m A
ine is excessive hen it is dispr p rti nate t the circumstance
the

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

ense (1) "he
raudulent debt c nstitutes a crime (esta
a)

(2) "he debt r has been duly c nvicted
*+()%#(#*$#*#% $#
m ere severity
the punishment d es n t make it cruel r unusual. 9t 3 ll "ax ± cedula tax r residence tax
must be
lagrantly and plainly ppressive, h lly dispr p rti nate t the
nature
the

ense as t sh ck the m ral sense
the c mmunity 55
(3e ple v. gst ista) "he gravamen
the

ense punished by B3 22 is the act
issuing a
 rthless check r a check that is dish n red. 9t is n t the n npayment
an
m Úuides t determine i
it is cruel and unusual bligati n that is penalized. "he thrust
the la is t pr hibit, under pain

1.m 3unishment must n t be s severe as t be degrading t human penal sancti ns, the making
 rthless checks. (3e ple v. P zan )
dignity
2.m 9t must n t be arbitrary
3.m 9t must n t be unacceptable t c ntemp rary s ciety 
  5     ¯ 
 
  - ¯ 

4.m 9t must n t be excessive  3


 ¯3

 
¯¯
   ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯  
   ¯

¯  
Hein us Crime ± hein us
r being griev us, di us, and hate
ul

enses and 
  ¯  


 ¯ ¯ 
 ¯
   


hich by reas n
their inherent r mani
est ickedness, vici usness, atr city
 ¯3¯

and perversity are repugnant and utrage us t the c mm n standards and 
n rms
decency and m rality in a just, civilized and rdered s ciety m nder the
irst sentence, ne can be charged
r the same act i
it
c nstitutes at least t di

erent

enses under t statutes r t
"he p er
the State t imp se the death penalty is implied in secti n 1
rdinances. But this d es n apply t c ntinuing crimes
Article 3. ³ pers n shall be deprived
, liberty, r pr perty ith ut due 
pr cess
la.´ Secti n 19 merely pr vides the limit t that plenary p er

the State. 

"he c ngress has the p er t rest re the death penalty hich merely Ã9S" gO3ADY A""ACHgD 1.m Ú d 9ndictment
requires that: 2.m Be
re a c mpetent C urt
(1) the c ngress de
ine r describe hat is meant by hein us crimes; 3.m A
ter arraignment
(2) that c ngress speci
y and penalize by death nly crimes that 4.m A
ter a valid plea
quali
y as hein us in acc rdance ith the de
initi n r descripti n set
in the death penalty bill m De
ective c mplaint did n t pace
(3) the c ngress sh uld be singularly m tivated by c mpelling reas n the accused in
irst je pardy
inv lving hein us crimes. (3e ple v. gchegaray) Ã9S" gO3ADY "g9A"gD 1.m By Acquittal
2.m Ãinal C nvicti n
"he punishment
death by itsel
is neither cruel n r unusual. 9t is nly cruel 3.m Dismissal ith ut express
hen it inv lves lingering death. (3e ple v. gchegaray) c nsent
the accused
4.m Dismissal n the merits


  5J     ¯  3  
 
  m aerbal dismissal is n t
inal until
 ¯3

¯ 
¯7 ritten and signed by a judge
 SgCOD gO3ADY A""ACHgD Same gvidence "est hether the
Debt ± liability t pay m ney gr ing ur
c ntract, express r implied evidence needed
r ne case ill
supp rt a c nvicti n in the ther.
A pers n may nly be impris ned
r
raudulent debt i
:

r- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

2.m 9dentical
3.m 9n the attempted r

rustrated
rm
an ther
4.m ecessarily includes
5.m ecessarily included
¯,,+ 
udgment
Acquittal ± immediately
inal. (decided n merits)
udgment
C nvicti n ±
inal hen the peri d
r appeal has lapsed r
sentence is served r right t appeal is aived r applied
r pr bati n

¯¯&$#!-,)' %" ,,+

"he rule against d uble je pardy pr tects the accused n t against the peril

sec nd punishment, but against being again tried
r the same

ense.
(3e ple v. Ylagan)
 n t attach.
1*% % !+%)!# !*/+-,)'
9m Ãirst e pardy must have attached pri r t the 2nd
 gvidence
sel
de
ense am unts t ithdraal
his riginal plea.
 A de
ective c mplaint d es O" attach je pardy up n a grant
a
m ti n t quash.
*,"#%#(
& 
 9
the C urt has O jurisdicti n, je pardy shall n t attach.
59m Ãirst e pardy must have "g9A"gD

$%#%#!-,)'
D uble e pardy cann t be inv ked as a de
ense hen the ther case used as
the basis
the
irst e pardy has n t been terminated. (Bula ng v. 3e ple)
 hich the de
endant is resp nsible, hich changes the character
the

$%#%# ++/
a.m An ther pr secuti n
r the

ense charged.
b.m Any attempt t c mmit the same,
c.m Or
rustrati n there
,
d.m Or
r any

ense hich necessarily includes
necessarily included in the c mplaint/in
rmati n.
9
an accused
iles t dismiss the case
r lack
jurisdicti n, it is made via
his n aiver, there
re 1st je pardy d es O" attach.
 9
there is c nsent t a pr visi nal dismissal by the accused, je pardy d es
 je pardy in: rdinary appeal,
act
inding, certi rari, impeachment,
legislati n in aid
legislati n
 *+#
Supervening gvent± When the 2nd

ense as n t in existence at the time

the
irst pr secuti n,
r the simple reas n that in such a case there is n
p ssibility
r the accused t be c nvicted
r an

ense that as then
inexistent.
Supervening Ãact±Where a
ter the
irst pr secuti n, a ne
act supervenes
r


ense, and, t gether ith the
acts existing at the time, c nstitutes a ne
and distinct

ense, there is n d uble je pardy. " determine d uble
je pardy, it is essential t pr ve the existence
b th

enses during the
pendency
the
irst pr secuti n. "he sec nd charge as inexistent in this
r is case at that time because the victim as still alive. "here as a supervening

act in this case calling
r the amendment
the in
rmati n. (3e ple v. el )
"an appeal by the pr secuti n
r m the Order
Dismissal by the
trial c urt shall n t c nstitute D uble e pardy i
:
1.m Dismissal is made up n m ti n, r ith the express c nsent
the
de
endant.
2.m "he dismissal is n t an acquittal based up n c nsiderati n
the
evidence r the merits
the case.
3.m "he questi n t be passed up n by the appellate c urt is purely legal
$ !!#  
s that sh uld the dismissal be
und inc rrect, the case  uld have
t be remanded t the c urt
rigin
r
urther pr ceedings, in rder
t determine guilt/inn cence
the de
endant.
 te: a verbal dismissal is n t
inal until ritten d n and signed by the
udge.
9m "he 2nd e pardy must be
r the same

ense as that in the
irst
rr Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
But i
reas n
r the amendment
the charge as already existing during the

irst examinati n but as n t c nsidered in the charge because
the
negligence
the examiner, then d uble je pardy may attach because there is
n Supervening event. (3e ple v. Buling)

 O

enses need n t be the same, but they sh uld c me
r m the same act.

 hen ne act vi lates t di

erent statutes r t di

erent pr visi ns

a statute. 9
ne act results in 2 di

erent

enses, pr secuti n under ne is
n t a bar t pr secuti n under the ther.
A special la pr hibiting the illegal p ssessi n

irearms, even i
it pr vides

r a higher penalty i
the eap n as used in a h micide/murder, d es n t
1A 2010
m

create a
irst je pardy t the pr secuti n
r the h micide/murder. D uble
e pardy may nly be inv ked
r the same

ense r identical

enses.
A simple act may be an

ense against t di

erent pr visi ns
la. 9
ne
pr visi n requires pr

an additi nal
act that is n t included in the ther,
an acquittal r c nvicti n under ne d es n t bar pr secuti n
r the ther.
"he accused cann t plead ne as a bar t an ther. ( 3e ple v "i z n)
 )%##&#)
* c.m imp sed directly by the la ith ut judicial trial.
9
an act is punished by la and an rdinance, c nvicti n r acquittal under
either shall c nstitute a bar
t an ther pr secuti n
r the same act.


©
and by vert acts
(3e ple v. el va)
When the dismissal r terminati n
the case is br ught ab ut at the instance

the accused, there is n d uble je pardy.
a certain c urt.
Bill
Attainder  a legislative act hich in
licts punishment ith ut judicial
trial
glements:
a.m "here must be a la,
b.m Which imp ses a penal burden n a named individual r
easily ascertainable members
a gr up,
A Pa punishing any pers n h · 
a

iliates himsel
ith, bec mes r remains a member´
the C mmunist 3arty
r
any ther similar ³subversive´ rganizati n is n t a Bill
Attainder
because it d es n t dispense ith udicial determinati n
the guilt
the
accused. 9ntent still needs t be pr ven in c urt. (3e ple v. Ãerrer)

¯,,+%)%$,&$#&   A bill
attainder is a legislative act hich in
licts punishment ith ut judicial
gstrada cann t claim that the impeachment pr ceeding as ³terminated n its trial. 9ts essence is the substituti n
a legislative
r a judicial determinati n
merits´ and that there as a ³
ailure t pr secute´ him. By resigning, he
guilt.
c nsented t the terminati n
the impeachment case against him. (gstrada v
Desiert ) "he gO is n t a Bill
Attainder because it makes it per
ectly clear that any
judgment
guilt in the amassing acquisiti n
'illg tten ealth' is t be
 handed d n by a judicial tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (airata v.
 Sandiganbayan)

  55 7

¯
¯ 
¯

¯  ¯ "he retr active applicati n
A 8249, hich expands the jurisdicti n
the
¯
 Sandiganbayan, cann t be c nsidered as an 
 
©  la. 9t is n t a penal
 la but a substantive la n jurisdicti n. Only the retr active applicati n
a
gx 3 st Ãact Pa ± penal la can be c nsidered as an 
 
© 
la. (Pacs n v. gxecutive
(a) ne hich makes an acti n d ne be
re the passing
the la and Secretary)
hich as inn cent hen d ne criminal and punishes such acti n,
(b) hich aggravates a crime r makes it greater than hen it as
c mmitted, ¯

6 
(c) hich changes the punishment and in
licts a greater punishment,
(d) hich alters the legal rules
evidence and receive less r di

erent 
 

 ¯ 
6 

 
testim ny than the la required at the time
the c mmissi n
the 89m
  ¯ 
6 

 ¯


3


ense,

¯ 
 

  


 
(e) assumes t regulate civil rights and remedies nly but in e

ect 859m
   
¯
   3
  ¯  
6


imp ses a penalty r deprivati n
a right hich hen d ne as la
ul,  
(
) deprives a pers n accused
a crime
s me la
ul pr tecti n t 89m
    
 -¯¯  ? G? 
 
hich he has bec me entitled. 3
    
  
6   
¯
¯
3¯- 
L¯
O"g: 9t nly pr hibits retr spective penal las (las hich imp se a 8-9m
  ¯ ¯
 ¯6¯ ¯
¯
penalty r prescribes a burden equivalent t a penalty) 
 DOgS O" apply t substantive las like the expansi n
jurisdicti n
m Citizenship ± pers nal and m re r less permanent membership in a

r‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
p litical c mmunity.
m  des
Acquiring Citizenship: 1. us sanguinis ± n the basis
bl d;
2. us s li ± basis
place
birth; 3. aturalizati n ± legal act

ad pting an alien and cl thing him ith the privilege
a native b rn. We

ll  us sanguinis and naturalizati n.
m Citizenship makes n distincti n beteen legitimate r illegitimate
children i
lineage is clear ("ecs n v. COgPgC)
m Child b rn under the 1973 r 1987 C nstituti n
Ãilipina m ther and an
alien
ather (a) i
the m ther is still a citizenship at the time
birth, he is
a natural b rn (b) i
the m ther has changed citizenship, need t
naturalize
m Kinds
aturalizati n la: Úeneral, Special, ass, Úeneral la applied
thr ugh c mbinati n
administrative pr cess and presidential legislative
pr cess, administrative
Mm 3r cedural requirements: declarati n
intenti n,
iling

aturalizati n las sh uld be rigidly en
rced and c nstrued strictly in
av r

the g vernment and against the applicant.
aturalizati n requires b th substantial and pr cedural c mpliance (Ong Chia
v epublic)
9n naturalizati n pr ceedings, it is the burden
the applicant t pr ve n t
nly his n g d m ral character but als the g d m ral character

his/her itnesses, h must be credible pers ns. (S v. epublic)
A naturalizati n pr ceeding is n t a judicial adversary pr ceeding, and the
decisi n rendered therein d es n t c nstitute res judicata. A certi
icate

naturalizati n may be cancelled i
it is subsequently disc vered that the
applicant btained it by misleading the c urt up n any material
act. (S v.
epublic)
petiti n, hearing and initial judgment, peri d
pr bati n, "he d ctrine

$ 
d es n t apply t citizenship. (Pab v C melec)
rehearing and
inal judgment
Mm Substantive requirements: b rn r residing in the c untry
since birth, 18 years ab ve, ÚC and believes in the
principles
the c nstituti n, must received primary and
sec ndary educati n t a sch l rec gnized by DgCS, must
have kn n trade, business, pr
essi n r ccupati n, able
t read, rite, speak Ãilipin , must have mingled ith
citizens and evinced desire t learn
A natural b rn citizen
the 3hilippines h ns dual citizenship, but n t
 

9n rder
r 
$ 
t apply, there must be:
1.m a pers n's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
c ntr versy here said pers n is a party;
2.m the S licit r Úeneral r his auth rized representative t k active
part in the res luti n there
, and;
3.m the
inding r citizenship is a

irmed by this C urt.
(Úatchalian v. B ard
C mmissi ners)
 
(
r instance, a natural b rn citizen, h by $
 , als
%+%%#
acquires alien citizenship) is deemed t have ren unced his alien citizenship ."he 
  child
a Ãilipin
ather and an alien m ther is a Ãilipin as
up n the
iling
an applicati n
r a Certi
icate
Candidacy. (aalles v. l ng as paternity is clear because
$

 . "here is n distincti n
C melec, ercad v. anzan ) beteen legitimate and illegitimate children. ("ecs n v COgPgC)

"he mere
act that a pers n is b rn in a territ ry that
ll s the rule
5

 
d es n t mean that he is n l nger a Ãilipin citizen. At the m st, it grants 
 5¯
 ¯ 
6 ¯ 
  ¯ 
6 
him dual citizenship as l ng as ne
his parents is a Ãilipin . (aalles v.

  
3 
 
 
 ¯
 
3
C melec) ¯ ¯

 ¯   


   
6 

    
  
6   ¯ ¯ 

*+%=%# ¯ ¯ ¯89 
  ¯3¯
 ¯ 
 
m aturalizati n may be by a P  
 (Pa best ing citizenship t A Child b rn be
re an 17, 1973 t an alien
ather and a Ãilipin m ther d es
an alien),   
 (A 9139), r by a udicial Act n t have t elect 3hilippine Citizenship i
his
ather has bec me a naturalized
(C mm nealth Act 473) Ãilipin citizen be
re he c uld reach the age
maj rity. He cann t elect
m An Applicant
r naturalizati n nder CA 473 must the strict requirements an ther citizenship because his
ather as already a Ãilipin citizen.

CA 473. He cann t be granted citizenship even i
he  uld have been He is deemed t be a natural b rn citizen by virtue
the curative nature
quali
ied under A 9139 (S v. epublic) Secti n 2 because his m ther is a Ãilipina, and he d es n t have t per
rm
 any acts t per
ect his Ãilipin citizenship.

r  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

(C v Hg") Citizenship is an indispensible requirement
r h lding elective

ice. (Pab r

v C melec, 1996)
9n ,%%#, hich is the relevant m de in this case, the rec very and
rest rati n
the riginal nati nality ccurs. A natural b rn citizen h l ses A Ãilipin h claims that he as naturalized as an American citizen in rder
his citizenship, then applies
r repatriati n is deemed t be a natural b rn t pr tect himsel

r m the arc s regime is disquali
ied
r m running
r
citizen. "his is in spite
the pr visi n
Secti n 2. (Bengs n v Hg")

ice. any Ãilipin s are similarly situated in the States but did n t
ind it
 necessary t aband n Ãilipin citizenship. He may validly reacquire his
 citizenship thr ugh repatriati n t quali
y himsel

r

ice. (Ãrivald v.


  
6
 3¯ 

  ¯  C melec, 1989)

3¯  ¯
 Ã r elective

icials, citizenship is required at the time he is pr claimed t
m aturalizati n las all  cancellati n
certi
icate i
it is
und t have

ice and at the start
his term. epatriati n retr actively applies t the
btained ³
raudulently r illegally´ r that he vi lated c nditi ns p sed n date
applicati n. (Ãrivald v C melec, 1996)
him. "his must be pr ven in a clear, unequiv cal and c nvincing evidence
m H  may citizenship be reacquired: aturalizati n, Direct act
C ngress

  - 
6


 
   3¯  ¯

and epatriati n
¯ 
¯
  
6
 

 
  ¯
 
m P ss
Citizenship 3
 
¯ 3 
¯
¯  
Mm aturalizati n 

Mm gxpress renunciati n 
Mm Subscribing ath
allegiance t a
reign c untry

  r ¯ ¯¯
 
6
 
 3¯


Mm Serving in the armed
rces
an enemy c untry ¯
 ¯
 

¯
¯¯

¯
Mm Being a deserter
the AÃ3
m epatriati n ± rec very
riginal citizenship.
Mm Deserti n
the armed
rces
Mm Service in the armed
rced
the allied
rces during the
W rld War 99
Mm Service in the armed
rces
the S at any ther time
Mm arriage
a Ãilipin  man t an alien
Mm 3 litical and ec n mic necessity
A naturalized Ãilipin h c ntinues t declare 3 rtugese citizenship in
c mmercial d cuments and subsequently btains a 3 rtugese passp rt is
deemed t have expressly ren unced his 3hilippine citizenship by c ntinuing
t represent himsel
as an alien. His acts are gr ssly inc nsistent ith
naturalizati n. (Yu v. De
ens rSantiag )
A Ãilipin h naturalizes as an Australian, ren uncing his Ãilipin citizenship
in the pr cess, cann t validly claim that he is still a Ãilipin citizen because his
acquisiti n
Australian citizenship as impr per. He has already validly
ren unced his Ãilipin citizenship, and the validity
his naturalizati n is
beteen him and Australia. ntil he takes the steps necessary t validly
reacquire 3hilippine citizenship, he is disquali
ied
r m running
r

ice. (Pab
r. v C melec, 1989)
rü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m

m Pa has all ed dual citizenship
m Dual citizenship is n t dual allegiance
m Derivative aturalizati n= citizenship derived
r m that
an ther as

r m a pers n h h lds citizenship by virtue
naturalizati n
A atural b rn Ãilipin h acquires alien citizenship by naturalizati n, then
subsequently applies
r repatriati n in rder t retain/reacquire his Ãilipin
citizenship is c nsidered t
all under the term ³dual allegiance´. (ac t v. Dal)
"he rule in ercad v. anzan and aalles v. C melec is inapplicable here a
Ãilipin citizen acquires
reign citizenship thr ugh naturalizati n, then
subsequently repatriates under A 9225. He is n t c nsidered t have
ren unced his allegiance t the
reign c untry up n his
iling
a COC. He
must
irst take an ath expressly ren uncing his
reign allegiance be
re he
may be quali
ied t
ile
r candidacy. (ac t v. Dal)
Dual allegiance is di

erent
r m dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises hen,
as a result
the c ncurrent applicati n
the di

erent las
t r m re
states, a pers n is simultane usly c nsidered a nati nal by the said states
(e.g. jus s li, jus sanguinis) Dual allegiance re
ers t the situati n in hich a
pers n simultane usly es, by s me p sitive act, l yalty t t r m re
states. 9t is the result
an individual¶s v liti n. (ercad v. anzan )
1A 2010
m

because
the turbulent p litical climate cann t be c nsidered t have

A Dual Citizen h repatriates under A 9225 is deemed t implicitly ren unce aband ned his d micile. His departure cann t be c nsidered v luntary and
his allegiance t the
reign c untry. (AASSCalilung v Datuman ng) ith ut evidence
his intenti n t aband n the ld d micile, he cann t be
presumed t have ad pted a ne ne. ( mualdez v. "C)

¯
 

¯ m Acquisiti n
a ne d micile requires 

  and 

  6


   

¯ 3¯  7    ¯ 
6 


 1.m esidence, b dily presence in ne l cality
  

    ¯
  ¯   ¯  ¯
 2.m 9   t remain in the ne l cality
¯
 
 ¯ 
 ¯ ¯   ¯ ¯    3.m 9  
t  


 

  
 ¯
 ¯
  ¯  ¯ 
 ¯
 
   
 

 ¯
 ¯
 7 3 
  
 5
    ¯ ¯ 
3
  
33¯
  
 
    
 ¯  

   ¯ ¯



 ¯
 ¯   ¯  ¯ 
3

  
¯
  3
 ¯  3  

 ¯ 
 
  ¯

  ¯ ¯

7  
 

¯   


¯ ¯
 
 ¯   

 
¯
 ¯

 ¯




 

¯



¯

 
m Su

rage ± right t v te in electi n 

 



¯  ¯ 
 
  
m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne 7

 ¯
 ¯
 
 ¯

  33

  
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld 
 
 3¯  3¯

 



 


d micile
m  t quali
y t v te: th se sentence by
inal judgment t su

er
impris nment
n t less than ne year but shall aut matically reacquire
the right up n expirati n

ive years a
ter service
sentence, any
pers n adjudged by
inal c nvicti n
vi lating his allegiance, insane r

eebleminded pers ns.
" be sure, the right
su

rage is n t at all abs lute. eedless t say, the
exercise
the right
su

rage, as in the enj yment
all ther rights, is
subject t existing substantive and pr cedural requirements emb died in ur
C nstituti n, statute b ks and ther rep sit ries
la. As t the pr cedural
limitati n, the right
a citizen t v te is necessarily c nditi ned up n certain
pr cedural requirements he must underg : am ng thers, the pr cess

registrati n.
3r ceeding
r m the signi
icance
registrati n as a necessary requisite t the
right t v te, the State, in the exercise
its inherent p lice p er, may then
¯-
¯


m Absentee v ting all ed under A 9189
nder A 9189, a Ãilipin immigrant h has been absent
r 3 years is
presumed t have aband ned his residence. H ever, he may execute an
a

idavit
his intenti n t return. "his serves as implicit pr
that he has n t
aband ned his d micile, and is there
re d es n t vi late the residency
requirement
Secti n 1. (acalintal v. C melec)
Dual Citizens under A 9225 are all ed t v te thr ugh the Overseas
Absentee v ter la, ith ut the need
r residency. Secti n 2 Auth rizes
absentee v ting and pr vides an exempti n
r m the residency requirement.
(ic lasPeis v. C melec)

¯
7

¯3¯ 


enact las t sa
eguard and regulate the act
v ter¶s registrati n
r the
&%#  "he C ngress shall give highest pri rity t the enactment

ultimate purp se
c nducting h nest, rderly and peace
ul electi n, t the measures that pr tect and enhance the right
all the pe ple t human
incidental yet generally imp rtant end, that even preelecti n activities c uld dignity, reduce s cial, ec n mic, and p litical inequalities, and rem ve cultural
be per
rmed by the duly c nstituted auth rities in a realistic and rderly inequities by equitably di

using ealth and p litical p er
r the c mm n
manner. (Akbayan v. C melec; the C urt de
ending C melec¶s ban
r g d. " this end, the State shall regulate the acquisiti n, nership, use, and
registrati n 120 days be
re the electi n) disp siti n
pr perty and its increments.
"he C nstituti n speci
ically pr vides that lab r is entitled t "humane
A pers n h le
t the c untry t seek asylum abr ad ut

ear
r his sa
ety c nditi ns
 rk. 9t als directs the State t pr m te "equality

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m

empl yment pp rtunities
r all." Similarly, the Pab r C de pr vides that the c nsiderati ns, and subject t the payment
just c mpensati n. 9n
State shall "ensure equal  rk pp rtunities regardless
sex, race r creed." determining retenti n limits, the State shall respect the right
small
9t  uld be an a

r nt t b th the spirit and letter
these pr visi ns
the land ners. "he State shall
urther pr vide incentives
r v luntary land
State, i
in spite
its prim rdial bligati n t pr m te and ensure equal sharing.
empl yment pp rtunities, it cl ses its eyes t unequal and discriminat ry
terms and c nditi ns
empl yment. (9nternati nal Sch l Alliance

gducat rs v. Quisumbing)
m " principal activities state is c mmanded t attend t achieve s cial
justice (1) creati n
m re ec n mic pp rtunities and m re ealth
(2)cl ser regulati n
the acquisiti n, nership, use and disp siti n

pr perty t achieve m re equitable distributi n r ealth and p er
m
m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld
d micile
&%# 5 "he pr m ti n
s cial justice shall include the c mmitment t
create ec n mic pp rtunities based n
reed m
initiative and sel
reliance.
¯
2%#(%*-* $,# %#<  3D 27 expressly rdered that ³n
&%#  "he State shall a

rd
ull pr tecti n t lab r, l cal and verseas,
rganized and un rganized, and pr m te
ull empl yment and equality

empl yment pp rtunities
r all.
9t shall guarantee the rights
all  rkers t sel
 rganizati n, c llective
bargaining and neg tiati ns, and peace
ul c ncerted activities, including the
right t strike in acc rdance ith la. "hey shall be entitled t security

tenure, humane c nditi ns
 rk, and a living age. "hey shall als
participate in p licy and decisi nmaking pr cesses a

ecting their rights and
bene
its as may be pr vided by la.
"he State shall pr m te the principle
shared resp nsibility beteen  rkers
and empl yers and the pre
erential use
v luntary m des in settling
disputes, including c nciliati n, and shall en
rce their mutual c mpliance
thereith t
ster industrial peace.
"he State shall regulate the relati ns beteen  rkers and empl yers,
Secti n 16(d), hich pr vides that in case
the rejecti n r disregard by
rec gnizing the right
lab r t its just share in the
ruits
pr ducti n and
the right
enterprises t reas nable returns t investments, and t
expansi n and gr th.
¯ ¯ ¯¯¯
 ¯ 
 
 
3
&%# - "he State shall, by la, undertake an agrarian re
rm pr gram

unded n the right

armers and regular
arm  rkers h are landless, t
n directly r c llectively the lands they till r, in the case
ther
arm
 rkers, t receive a just share
the
ruits there
. " this end, the State
shall enc urage and undertake the just distributi n
all agricultural lands,
subject t such pri rities and reas nable retenti n limits as the C ngress may
prescribe, taking int acc unt ec l gical, devel pmental, r equity
‰
Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
+%&!$%##$%#<
" the extent that the
measures under challenge merely prescribe retenti n limits
r land ners,
there is an exercise
the p lice p er
r the regulati n
private pr perty
in acc rdance ith the C nstituti n. But here, t carry ut such regulati n it
bec mes necessary t deprive such ners
hatever lands they may n
in excess
the maximum area all ed, there is de
initely a taking under the
p er
eminent d main
r hich payment
just c mpensati n is
imperative.
"he taking c ntemplated is n t a mere limitati n
the use
the land. What
it requires is the surrender
the title t and the physical p ssessi n
the
said excess and all bene
icial rights accruing t the ner in
av r
the

armerbene
iciary.
title t the land ned´ as t be actually issued t the recipient
armer
unless and until he had bec me a
ull
ledged member
a duly rec gnized

armers¶ c perative.´ 9t as underst d, h ever, that
ull payment
the
just c mpensati n als had t be made
irst, c n
rmably t the c nstituti nal
requirement.
"he CA3 Pa,
r its part, c nditi ns the trans
er
p ssessi n and
nership
the land t the g vernment n receipt by the land ner
the
c rresp nding payment r the dep sit by the DA
the c mpensati n in cash
r PB3 b nds ith an accessible bank. ntil then, title als remains ith the
land ner.
 )$%#%#!-* $,# %#,"%))!/'+"+%)<

the ner
the

er
the g vernment t buy his land
³... the DA shall c nduct summary administrative pr ceedings t determine
the c mpensati n
r the land´
Alth ugh the pr ceedings are described as summary, the land ner and ther
interested parties are nevertheless all ed an pp rtunity t submit evidence
n the real value
the pr perty. But m re imp rtantly, the determinati n

the just c mpensati n by the DA is n t by any means
inal and c nclusive,
the C urts
ustice still have a right t revie the determinati n ith
inality.
"+*%#'0,,%%#."he traditi nal medium
r the payment

1A 2010
m
just c mpensati n is m ney and n ther. H ever, e d n t deal here ith
&%# ? "he State shall pr tect the rights
subsistence
ishermen,
the traditi nal excercise
the p er
eminent d main. "his is a
"+*%#'2%#)!0,,%%#hich a

ects all private agricultural
lands henever
und and
hatever kind as l ng as they are in excess

the maximum retenti n limits all ed their ners. "his kind
expr priati n
is intended
r the bene
it n t nly
a particular c mmunity r
a small
segment
the p pulati n but
the entire Ãilipin nati n.
"he pr p rti n
cash payment t the ther things
value c nstituting the
t tal payment, as determined n the basis
the areas
the lands
&%# @ "he State shall pr vide incentives t land ners t invest the
expr priated, is n t unduly ppressive up n the land ner. 9t is n ted that
the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney, primarily because the
small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big land ners, h can
a

rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things
value.
(Ass ciati n
Small Pand ners v. Secretary
Agrarian e
rm)
m "his pr visi n aims at e

icient pr ducti n, and m re equitable distributi n

land, rec gnizing the right
th se h are landless t n the land
they till and a just share
the
ruits
the land.
especially
l cal c mmunities, t the pre
erential use
the c mmunal
marine and
ishing res urces, b th inland and

sh re. 9t shall pr vide
supp rt t such
ishermen thr ugh appr priate techn l gy and research,
adequate
inancial, pr ducti n, and marketing assistance, and ther services.
"he State shall als pr tect, devel p, and c nserve such res urces. "he
pr tecti n shall extend t

sh re
ishing gr unds
subsistence
ishermen
against
reign intrusi n. Ãish rkers shall receive a just share
r m their
lab r in the utilizati n
marine and
ishing res urces.
pr ceeds
the agrarian re
rm pr gram t pr m te industrializati n,
empl yment creati n, and privatizati n
public sect r enterprises. Ãinancial
instruments used as payment
r their lands shall be h n red as equity in
enterprises
their ch ice.
m "here sh uld be mutual bene
icial relati nship beteen industrializati n
and agrarian re
rm. Agrarian re
rm must unl ck the idle ealth hidden
in the land and industrializati n  uld pr vide
r impr vement
 ¯¯ 
3¯ 

m edistributi n
land is t be achieved thr ugh v luntary sale r
&%# G "he State shall, by la, and
r the c mm n g d, undertake, in
expr priati n and resale.
Pivest ck r p ultry raising is n t similar t cr p r tree
arming. Pand is n t
the primary res urce in this undertaking. "he use
land is incidental t , but
n t the principal
act r r c nsiderati n in pr ductivity in this industry. "he
transcripts
the deliberati ns
the c nstituti nal c mmissi n
1986 n the
meaning
the  rd ³agricultural´ clearly sh  that it as never the intenti n

the
ramers
the c nstituti n t include livest ck and p ultry industry in
the c verage
the c nstituti nallymandated agrarian re
rm pr gram
the
g vt. (Puz Ãarms v. Sec.
Agrarian e
rm)
&%# r "he State shall rec gnize the right

armers,
arm rkers, and
land ners, as ell as c peratives, and ther independent
armers'
rganizati ns t participate in the planning, rganizati n, and management

&%# J rban r rural p r dellers shall n t be evicted n r their
the pr gram, and shall pr vide supp rt t agriculture thr ugh appr priate
techn l gy and research, and adequate
inancial, pr ducti n, marketing, and
ther supp rt services.
&%# ‰ "he State shall apply the principles
agrarian re
rm r
steardship, henever applicable in acc rdance ith la, in the disp siti n r
utilizati n
ther natural res urces, including lands
the public d main
under lease r c ncessi n suitable t agriculture, subject t pri r rights,
h mestead rights
small settlers, and the rights
indigen us c mmunities
t their ancestral lands. "he State may resettle landless
armers and

arm rkers in its n agricultural estates hich shall be distributed t them
in the manner pr vided by la.
‰6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
c perati n ith the private sect r, a c ntinuing pr gram
urban land
re
rm and h using hich ill make available at a

rdable c st, decent
h using and basic services t underprivileged and h meless citizens in urban
centers and resettlement areas. 9t shall als pr m te adequate empl yment
pp rtunities t such citizens. 9n the implementati n
such pr gram the
State shall respect the rights
small pr perty ners.
m gvicti n must be d ne in acc rdance ith la that is ith dye pr cess.
Due pr cesses n t necessarily judicial pr cess. 9t can als be
administrative
m gvicti n and dem liti n ± the pers n must be acc rded due pr cess r an
pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her ccupati n r
p ssessi n inv lved is unla
ul r against the ill
the ner
delling dem lished, except in acc rdance ith la and in a just and humane
manner.  resettlement
urban r rural dellers shall be undertaken
ith ut adequate c nsultati n ith them and the c mmunities here they are
t be rel cated.
3##!"%&%#.What is meant by "in acc rdance ith la" and "just
and humane manner" is that the pers n t be evicted be acc rded due
pr cess r an pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her
ccupati n r p ssessi n
the pr perty inv lved is unla
ul r against the
ill
the land ner; that sh uld the illegal r unla
ul ccupati n be pr ven,
the ccupant be su

iciently n ti
ied be
re actual evicti n r dem liti n is
d ne; and that there be n l ss
lives, physical injuries r unnecessary l ss
1A 2010
m

r damage t pr perties. (3e ple v. Peach n) 4.m "he appr ved annual appr priati ns
the C mmissi n shall be
aut matically and regularly released.
¯

&%#@"he C mmissi n n Human ights shall have the
ll ing
&%#"he State shall ad pt an integrated and c mprehensive appr ach
t health devel pment hich shall endeav r t make essential g ds, health
and ther s cial services available t all the pe ple at a

rdable c st. "here
shall be pri rity
r the needs
the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled,
 men, and children. "he State shall endeav r t pr vide
ree medical care t
paupers.
&%#5 "he State shall establish and maintain an e

ective
d and drug
regulat ry system and undertake appr priate health, manp er devel pment,
and research, resp nsive t the c untry's health needs and pr blems.
&%# "he State shall establish a special agency
r disabled pers n
r
their rehabilitati n, sel
devel pment, and sel
reliance, and their integrati n
int the mainstream
s ciety.
 3
&%# - "he State shall pr tect  rking  men by pr viding sa
e and
health
ul  rking c nditi ns, taking int acc unt their maternal
uncti ns, and
such
acilities and pp rtunities that ill enhance their el
are and enable
them t realize their
ull p tential in the service
the nati n.
p ers and
uncti ns:
1.m 9nvestigate, n its n r n c mplaint by any party, all
rms

human rights vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights;
2.m Ad pt its perati nal guidelines and rules
pr cedure, and cite
r
c ntempt
r vi lati ns there
in acc rdance ith the ules
C urt;
3.m 3r vide appr priate legal measures
r the pr tecti n
human rights

all pers ns ithin the 3hilippines, as ell as Ãilipin s residing
abr ad, and pr vide
r preventive measures and legal aid services t
the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need
pr tecti n;
4.m gxercise visit rial p ers ver jails, pris ns, r detenti n
acilities;
5.m gstablish a c ntinuing pr gram
research, educati n, and
in
rmati n t enhance respect
r the primacy
human rights;
6.m ec mmend t C ngress e

ective measures t pr m te human rights
and t pr vide
r c mpensati n t victims
vi lati ns
human
rights, r their
amilies;
7.m  nit r the 3hilippine Ú vernment's c mpliance ith internati nal
¯ 


 C
 ¯6¯
 
treaty bligati ns n human rights;

&%# r "he State shall respect the r le
independent pe ple's 8.m Úrant immunity
r m pr secuti n t any pers n h se testim ny r
rganizati ns t enable the pe ple t pursue and pr tect, ithin the h se p ssessi n
d cuments r ther evidence is necessary r
dem cratic
rame rk, their legitimate and c llective interests and aspirati ns c nvenient t determine the truth in any investigati n c nducted by
thr ugh peace
ul and la
ul means. it r under its auth rity;
3e ple's rganizati ns are b na
ide ass ciati ns
citizens ith dem nstrated 9.m equest the assistance
any department, bureau,

ice, r agency
capacity t pr m te the public interest and ith identi
iable leadership, in the per
rmance
its
uncti ns;
membership, and structure. 10.m App int its

icers and empl yees in acc rdance ith la; and

&%# ‰ "he right
the pe ple and their rganizati ns t e

ective and 11.m 3er
rm such ther duties and
uncti ns as may be pr vided by la.
reas nable participati n at all levels
s cial, p litical, and ec n mic decisi n "he C nstituti n did n t intend the CH t be an ther c urt r quasijudicial
making shall n t be abridged. "he State shall, by la,
acilitate the agency. "he m st that may be c nceded t it is that it may  
 (i.e.,
establishment
adequate c nsultati n mechanisms. receive evidence and make
indings

act as regards claimed human rights
3¯ 

vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights. But
act
inding is n t adjudicati n
&%#?
1.m "here is hereby created an independent

ice called the C mmissi n
n Human ights.
2.m "he C mmissi n shall be c mp sed
a Chairman and
ur embers
h must be naturalb rn citizens
the 3hilippines and a maj rity

h m shall be members
the Bar. "he term


ice and ther
quali
icati ns and disabilities
the embers
the C mmissi n shall
be pr vided by la.



3.m ntil this C mmissi n is c nstituted, the existing 3residential
C mmittee n Human ights shall c ntinue t exercise its present

uncti ns and p ers.
and cann t be likened t the judicial
uncti n
a c urt
justice, r even a
quasijudicial agency r

icial. "he
uncti n
receiving evidence and
ascertaining there
r m
acts
a c ntr versy is n t a judicial
uncti n,
pr perly speaking.
" be c nsidered as such, it must be acc mpanied by the auth rity
applying
the la t th se
actual c nclusi ns t the end that the c ntr versy may be
decided r determined auth ritatively,
inally and de
initively, subject t
appeals r m des
revie as may be pr vided by la. *

 
0
 

 (Carin v. C mmissi n n Human ights)
"#%" $ *  #) +(+ %) "%& . "he c nstituti nal pr visi n
directing the CH t "pr vide
r preventive measures and legal aid services

‰Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
t the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need
pr tecti n" may n t be c nstrued t c n
er jurisdicti n n the C mmissi n t
&%#  "he State shall pr tect and pr m te the right
all citizens t
issue a restraining rder r rit
injuncti n
r, i
that ere the intenti n,
the C nstituti n  uld have expressly said s . "urisdicti n is c n
erred nly
by the C nstituti n r by la.´
"preventive measures and legal aid services" menti ned in the C nstituti n
re
er t extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary rit

injuncti n) hich the CH may seek
r m the pr per c urts n behal

the
victims
human rights vi lati ns.  t being a c urt
justice, the CH itsel

has n jurisdicti n t issue the rit,
r a rit
preliminary injuncti n may
nly be issued "by the judge
any c urt in hich the acti n is pending
[ithin his district], r by a ustice
the C urt
Appeals, r
the Supreme
C urt. (g3ZA v. CH)
¯
 
quality educati n at all levels, and shall take appr priate steps t make such
educati n accessible t all.
m Characteristic
gducati nal System (1) quality educati n (2) a

rdable
(3) relevant t the needs
the pe ple and s ciety
m ight t quality educati n is n t abs lute but subject t
air, reas nable
and equitable admissi n and academic requirement
m Úeneral ule: sch ls may n t take disciplinary acti ns
r act c mmitted
utside campus unless (1) i
it is a sch l sp ns red activities r (2) the
misc nduct a

ects the student¶s status r the g d name r reputati n

the sch l
"(!:*$# %( ;.During the deliberati ns
the C nstituti nal
C mmissi n, the C mmissi ners agreed that the term µhuman rights¶ in ur
C nstituti n  uld c ver nly civil and p litical rights in rder t make the
CH m re e

ective. One c mmissi ner als emphasized six areas here the
CH c uld act e

ectively:
a.m pr tecti n
rights
p litical detainees
b.m treatment
pris ners and the preventi n
t rtures
c.m
air and public trials
d.m cases
disappearances
e.m salvagings and hamletting

.m ther crimes c mmitted against the religi us
%#+3)%&+¯)$% %#
 .9t is the right and indeed the
resp nsibility
the State t insure that the medical pr
essi n is n t
in
iltrated by inc mpetents t h m patients may unarily entrust their lives
and health.
"he three
lunk rule is a valid exercise
p lice p er. *  



upheld the c nstituti nality
the A" as a measure intended t
limit the admissi n t medical sch ls nly t th se h have initially pr ved
their c mpetence and preparati n
r a medical educati n.
"he right t quality educati n inv ked by the private resp ndent is #
/ +* "he C nstituti n als pr vides that "every citizen has the right t
#$,  !   . "he p er t cite
r c ntempt sh uld be ch se a pr
essi n r c urse
study, subject t
air, reas nable and
underst d t apply nly t vi lati ns
its ad pted perati nal guidelines equitable admissi n and academic requirements. (DgCS v. San Dieg )
and rules
pr cedure essential t carry ut its investigat rial p ers. "he
&%#5"he State shall:
p er t cite
r c ntempt c uld be exercised against pers ns h re
use t 1.m gstablish, maintain, and supp rt a c mplete, adequate, and
c perate ith the said b dy, r h unduly ithh ld relevant in
rmati n, r integrated system
educati n relevant t the needs
the pe ple
h decline t h n r summ ns, and the like, in pursuing its investigative and s ciety;
 rk. (Sim n r. v. CH) 2.m gstablish and maintain, a system

ree public educati n in the

&%#G "he C ngress may pr vide
r ther cases
vi lati ns
human elementary and high sch l levels. With ut limiting the natural rights
rights that sh uld
all ithin the auth rity
the C mmissi n, taking int
parents t rear their children, elementary educati n is c mpuls ry
acc unt its rec mmendati ns.
r all children
sch l age;
m "he p er
he c mmissi n is nly investigative. 9t d es n t have 3.m gstablish and maintain a system
sch larship grants, student l an
pr secut rial p ers. 9t must rely n the executive departments. 9t pr grams, subsidies, and ther incentives hich shall be available t
cann t issue rits r injuncti n deserving students in b th public and private sch ls, especially t
m "he c mmissi n can nly pr tect civil and p litical rights and n t s ci  the underprivileged;
ec n mic rights 4.m gnc urage n n
rmal, in
rmal, and indigen us learning systems, as
 ell as sel
learning, independent, and ut
sch l study pr grams
 particularly th se that resp nd t c mmunity needs; and
¯
 7 ¯
 
 ¯
   ¯

 5.m 3r vide adult citizens, the disabled, and ut
sch l y uth ith

 ¯


 training in civics, v cati nal e

iciency, and ther skills.

&%#

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010

m
m
1.m All educati nal instituti ns shall include the study
the C nstituti n
as part
the curricula.
2.m "hey shall inculcate patri tism and nati nalism,
ster l ve
educati nal purp ses shall be exempt
r m tax.
humanity, respect
r human rights, appreciati n
the r le

nati nal her es in the hist rical devel pment
the c untry, teach
the rights and duties
citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual
values, devel p m ral character and pers nal discipline, enc urage
critical and creative thinking, br aden scienti
ic and techn l gical
kn ledge, and pr m te v cati nal e

iciency.
&%#r
3.m At the pti n expressed in riting by the parents r guardians,
religi n shall be all ed t be taught t their children r ards in
public elementary and high sch ls ithin the regular class h urs by
instruct rs designated r appr ved by the religi us auth rities
the
religi n t hich the children r ards bel ng, ith ut additi nal c st
t the Ú vernment.
&%#-
1.m "he State rec gnizes the c mplementary r les
public and private
instituti ns in the educati nal system and shall exercise reas nable
supervisi n and regulati n
all educati nal instituti ns.
2.m gducati nal instituti ns, ther than th se established by religi us
gr ups and missi n b ards, shall be ned s lely by citizens
the
3hilippines r c rp rati ns r ass ciati ns at least sixty per centum

the capital
hich is ned by such citizens. "he C ngress may,
h ever, require increased Ãilipin equity participati n in all
educati nal instituti ns. "he c ntr l and administrati n
educati nal
instituti ns shall be vested in citizens
the 3hilippines.
 educati nal instituti n shall be established exclusively
r aliens
and n gr up
aliens shall c mprise m re than nethird
the
enr llment in any sch l. "he pr visi ns
this sub secti n shall n t
apply t sch ls established
r
reign dipl matic pers nnel and their
dependents and, unless therise pr vided by la,
r ther
reign
temp rary residents.
3.m All revenues and assets
n nst ck, n npr
it educati nal
instituti ns used actually, directly, and exclusively
r educati nal
purp ses shall be exempt
r m taxes and duties. p n the diss luti n
r cessati n
the c rp rate existence
such instituti ns, their
assets shall be disp sed
in the manner pr vided by la.
3r prietary educati nal instituti ns, including th se c peratively
ned, may likeise be entitled t such exempti ns, subject t the
limitati ns pr vided by la, including restricti ns n dividends and
pr visi ns
r reinvestment.
‰- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
4.m Subject t c nditi ns prescribed by la, all grants, end ments,
d nati ns, r c ntributi ns used actually, directly, and exclusively
r
m Ãilipinize (1) nership, (2) c ntr l and administrati n and (3) student
p pulati n
m Pevel
president, dean, principal, r member
the b ard
trustees are
Ãilipinized.
1.m the State shall take int acc unt regi nal and sect ral needs and
c nditi ns and shall enc urage l cal planning in the devel pment

educati nal p licies and pr grams.
2.m Academic
reed m shall be enj yed in all instituti ns
higher
learning.
3.m gvery citizen has a right t select a pr
essi n r c urse
study,
subject t
air, reas nable, and equitable admissi n and academic
requirements.
4.m "he State shall enhance the right
teachers t pr
essi nal
advancement.  nteaching academic and n nacademic pers nnel
shall enj y the pr tecti n
the State.
5.m "he State shall assign the highest budgetary pri rity t educati n and
ensure that teaching ill attract and retain its right
ul share
the
best available talents thr ugh adequate remunerati n and ther
means
j b satis
acti n and
ul
illment.
"he  #%+!)$ include:
a.m Wh may teach
b.m What may be taught
c.m H  it shall be taught
d.m Wh may be admitted t study (includes h may be
expelled r h may n t be admitted)
"he right
the sch l t discipline is included in the third and
urth
reed m.
9t is n t nly a right
the instituti n, but a duty t devel p discipline in its
students.
"he p er
the sch l t investigate is an adjunct
its p er t suspend r
expel. 9t is a necessary c r llary t the en
rcement
rules and regulati ns
and the maintenance
a sa
e and rderly educati nal envir nment c nducive
t learning. (iriam C llege v. CA)
Academic
reed m
instituti ns
higher learning is rec gnized by the
C nstituti n. "he sch l decides
r itsel
its aims and bjectives and h  best
t attain them. 9t is
ree
r m utside c erci n r inter
erence save p ssibly
hen the verriding public el
are calls
r s me restraint. 9t has a ide
sphere
aut n my certainly extending t the ch ice
students.
"he internal c nditi ns
r academic
reed m in a university are that the
academic sta

sh uld have de
act c ntr l
the
ll ing
uncti ns: (i) the
1A 2010
m
admissi n and examinati n
students; (ii) the curricula
r c urses
study;
(iii) the app intment and tenure


ice
academic sta

; and (iv) the
all cati n
inc me am ng the di

erent categ ries
expenditure. (Úarcia v.
&%#5 "he State shall regulate the trans
er and pr m te the adaptati n
Ãaculty Admissi n)
Sch ls
teaming(sic) are given ample discreti n t
rmulate rules and
guidelines in the granting
h n rs
r purp ses
graduati n. "his is part

academic
reed m. Within the parameters
these rules, it is ithin the
c mpetence
universities and c lleges t determine h are entitled t the
&%#  "he State shall pr tect and secure the exclusive rights

grant
h n rs am ng the graduating students. 9ts discreti n n this
academic matter may n t be disturbed much less c ntr lled by the c urts
unless there is grave abuse
discreti n in its exercise. ( niversity
San
Carl s v. CA)
¯
 
¯¯
&%#- "he State shall
ster the preservati n, enrichment, and dynamic
&%#‰ "he nati nal language
the 3hilippines is Ãilipin . As it ev lves, it
shall be
urther devel ped and enriched n the basis
existing 3hilippine and
ther languages. Subject t pr visi ns
la and as the C ngress may deem
appr priate, the Ú vernment shall take steps t initiate and sustain the use

Ãilipin as a medium


icial c mmunicati n and as language
instructi n
in the educati nal system.
&%# ? Ã r purp ses
c mmunicati n and instructi n, the

icial
&%# ‰ All the c untry's artistic and hist ric ealth c nstitutes the
languages
the 3hilippines are Ãilipin and, until therise pr vided by la,
gnglish. "he regi nal languages are the auxiliary

icial languages in the
regi ns and shall serve as auxiliary media
instructi n therein. Spanish and
&%# ? "he State shall rec gnize, respect, and pr tect the rights

Arabic shall be pr m ted n a v luntary and pti nal basis.
m Ãilipin is a language c nsisting
a
usi n
the vari us 3hilippine
languages.
m O

icial Panguage: Ãilipin and gnglish and Spanish
&%#@
&%# @ "his C nstituti n shall be pr mulgated in Ãilipin and gnglish and
shall be translated int maj r regi nal languages, Arabic, and Spanish.
&%# G "he C ngress shall establish a nati nal language c mmissi n
c mp sed
representatives
vari us regi ns and disciplines hich shall
undertake, c rdinate, and pr m te researches
r the devel pment,
pr pagati n, and preservati n
Ãilipin and ther languages.
incentives shall be pr vided t deserving science students, researchers,
scientists, invent rs, techn l gists, and specially gi
ted citizens.

techn l gy
r m all s urces
r the nati nal bene
it. 9t shall enc urage the
idest participati n
private gr ups, l cal g vernments, and c mmunity
based rganizati ns in the generati n and utilizati n
science and
techn l gy.
scientists, invent rs, artists, and ther gi
ted citizens t their intellectual
pr perty and creati ns, particularly hen bene
icial t the pe ple,
r such
peri d as may be pr vided by la.
¯

ev luti n
a Ãilipin nati nal culture based n the principle
unity in
diversity in a climate

ree artistic and intellectual expressi n.
Secti n 15. Arts and letters shall enj y the patr nage
the State. "he State
shall c nserve, pr m te, and p pularize the nati n's hist rical and cultural
heritage and res urces, as ell as artistic creati ns.
cultural treasure
the nati n and shall be under the pr tecti n
the State
hich may regulate its disp siti n.
indigen us cultural c mmunities t preserve and devel p their cultures,
traditi ns, and instituti ns. 9t shall c nsider these rights in the
rmulati n

nati nal plans and p licies.
1.m "he State shall ensure equal access t cultural pp rtunities thr ugh
the educati nal system, public r private cultural entities,
sch larships, grants and ther incentives, and c mmunity cultural
centers, and ther public venues.
2.m "he State shall enc urage and supp rt researches and studies n the
arts and culture.
¯
  


&%# J Science and techn l gy are essential
r nati nal devel pment
&%#G
and pr gress. "he State shall give pri rity t research and devel pment,
inventi n, inn vati n, and their utilizati n; and t science and techn l gy
educati n, training, and services. 9t shall supp rt indigen us, appr priate, and
sel
reliant scienti
ic and techn l gical capabilities, and their applicati n t the
c untry's pr ductive systems and nati nal li
e.
&%#  "he C ngress may pr vide
r incentives, including tax
deducti ns, t enc urage private participati n in pr grams
basic and
applied scienti
ic research. Sch larships, grantsinaid, r ther
rms


‰r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist
m
1.m "he State shall pr m te physical educati n and enc urage sp rts
pr grams, league c mpetiti ns, and amateur sp rts, including
training
r internati nal c mpetiti ns, t
ster sel
discipline,
team rk, and excellence
r the devel pment
a healthy and alert
citizenry.
2.m All educati nal instituti ns shall undertake regular sp rts activities
thr ugh ut the c untry in c perati n ith athletic clubs and ther
sect rs.
1A 2010