RECITATION NOTES​:

1ST TO 3RD MEETING

Two requirements of police power:

1.) Lawful subject
2.) Lawful means and purpose --> must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment and not unduly oppressive
________________________

Double taxation is allowed, for as long as it is not oppressive

Recitation Notes:
-What is jurisdiction: having the power to try and decide cases
-What determines jurisdiction: Rules of Court as well as Section 5, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution
-What is a suit in personam: a suit between parties
-What is a suit in rem: a suit that is enforceable against the whole world
-What is a quasi in rem:
-What is motu proprio: on his own volition
-Jeopardy: danger
-What is a quasi-judicial proceeding?
______________________
Quasi-Judicial Agency:
-Must be detached and impartial, not only when hearing and resolving the case before it, but even when its judgment is brought on
appeal before a higher court

Reminders:
*Take note of the definition of life, liberty and property (Bernas notes)
*Take note of the elements of judicial due process
*Take note of the elements of administrative and quasi-judicial due process cited in the Ang Tibay vs. CIR Case (7 requisites)
*Take note of the requisites to waive a right
*What is a certiorari?

-What does the constitution say about the Right to Bail? (Section 13, Article II of the 1987 Constitution)
-Case of Puruganan: why was due process not granted as well as the right to bail?
-What kind of procedural due process was the issue at bar in the case of Estrada vs. Ombudsman?
-*Bail is considered to be a separate issue from warrant of arrest (Ocampo vs. Abando case)
-The court departed from the ruling of Puruganan case when Govt. of HK vs. Olalia was present --> the Court now allows an
extraditee to post bail (focusing on the HR aspects of international law)
-In the Purganan case, Jimenez was not entitled to bail, because it was not available in extradition case
-Why was Section 13 of BoR not applied in Purganan? - Because section 13 only applies to criminal and not extradition proceedings
*Dissenting opinion of Assoc. Justice Puno in Olalia case
-What is the quantum of evidence required? - clear and convincing evidence that the person is NOT a flight risk
*Clear and convincing evidence: quantum of evidence which is below guilt beyond reasonable, but higher than preponderance of
evidence
*Preponderance of evidence:
*Substantial evidence:
-Where do we use substantial evidence?

-What constitutional right were the students claiming in the case of Guzman vs. NU?
-What are the guidelines for the procedural due process for students? (ADMU vs. Capulong)

-Requisites of a valid ordinance (White light case)

1.) Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2.) Must not be unfair or oppressive
3.) Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
4.) Must be general and consistent with public policy
5.) Must not be unreasonable
-Requisites of substantive due process:
1.) Lawful means
2.) Lawful purpose

-In the cases of Ermita and White Light, the means to initiate police power was UNLAWFUL (the ordinance that the City of Manila
created)

*Respondent in the ADMU case stated that the Ang Tibay case is APPLICABLE AND NOT THE Guzman case --> but however, Ang
Tibay case is considered to be an administrative proceeding

-Difference between a primary and secondary franchise?

*Secondary franchise: powers granted to a corporation by the sovereign and specified in its charter or by statute; it refers to any of
those franchises of a corporation
*Primary franchise: Right or franchise to be a corporation

-Requirements of due process: notice and hearing

-Where did Zozobrado initially filed the case? - CSC

-Why is Section 1 of BoR applicable in the case of UP vs. Ligot-Tan? --> because UP is a state university

-In the Guzman case, the right to assembly transcends the administrative regulations of the school = right to education vs. right to
academic freedom (a clash between two rights)

-Supposing that it is a company giving seminars, what would be the basis of your suit against their powers? -- You apply Section 22
of the Civil Code

-You will only apply the BoR under the 1987 Constitutions when it is against the State; for private companies or individuals, you
apply the Civil Code (Section 22 of NCC)

*What is the difference between deportation and extradition?

-Deportation: kick an alien out from the host country
-Extradition: an agreement between two nations, whereby the State will request the other State to extradite (get) the accused in
order for him/her to be tried in their own Court
-Subject are both aliens
-Extradition --> goes to the State demanding the subject

-Does the protection in Section 1 of the BoR extended to the case of Salaw vs. NLRC? (specifically in Associated Bank)

Salaw vs. NLRC:

-When was the case first deliberated? --> in the Associated Bank (there was a committee)
-Appealed to labor arbiter
-Went to NLRC
-Went to CA
-Went to SC
*Considered as a statutory right and NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (rights are under the Labor Code)
*you must know what right is violated and where you should go
-In the case of labor proceedings, you sue under the civil code or in the Labor Code

-What was the claim of Alcuaz?

Recitation Notes for Wednesday, January 30, 2019:

What are the elements of administrative due process? (7 requisites -- Ang Tibay)
What is a pilot (case of Corona)
-When the ships come here, since it takes special knowledge to bring them to harbor: a pilot will take over the captain to bring them
to the harbor (since they know the current of the waters) -- they cannot work in the high seas

UHPAP Case: what constitutional provision was the respondents invoking? --> right to their profession (Section 1, Article 3 of the
1987 Constitution); the law itself is unreasonable
-What are the pilots deprived of? = their right to exercise their profession (property = profession); what makes their profession a
certain kind of property? -- they have been exercising such right for the longest time
-What kinds of due process are present: procedural and substantive

Ynot Case --> purpose was valid but the means was not

AIF vs. OP --> administrative case; Ang Tibay requisites

-Issue of res judicata
-Res judicata in prison grey:
Described as “ res judicata in prison grey, ” the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prose- cution of a person for a crime of
which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. ... Res adjudicata is not applicable in the case at bar.

-What was being questioned in the case of Churchill? What government act?
-Who was Rafferty? = CIR
-In general, what is the common denominator of a lawful purpose? (what in the public?) -- Why would beauty be the purview of the
State?
-Contrast the Rafferty case with People vs. Fajardo?
-Exercise of power of eminent domain; just compensation

-Ermita case: presumption of validity must always be upheld, but with exceptions \
-Difference between Whitelight and Ermita
-What are ordinances? - these are a set of laws set forth by the local government units
-What are the requirements for the validity of the ordinances? (White light case)

-Balacuit case:
-Requisites for ordinances to be valid?
-Do municipalities have police power? -Yes. Vested under RA 7160 as well as the 1987 Constitution = Section 16: the General
Welfare Clause
-Who exercise police power? - the legislative department

-NDCNA: what aspect of due process is required = substantive due process (lawful means and lawful purpose)
-What does lawful purpose mean? = interest of the public as against that of a
-Why was EPC violated:
-Pacta sunct servanda: agreements must be followed or honored

-Dans case: Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act -- constitutionality?
-What does facial challenge mean?
-What does void for vagueness mean?
-Overbreadth doctrine:
a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms
Estrada case:
-What is plunder: dishonest acquisition of property
-Is the crime of plunder bailable?
-Is there a threshold amount mentioned? Yes. 50M

*Germane: relevant to a subject under consideration

-Montescalaros case:
-What is deathbed marriage?
-Is it illegal?
-What was the GSIS rule: Section 18 of PD 1146

Second Post:

Recitation Notes:
-What is the EPC? It refers to the protection given to certain members of the same class
-Requisites for the EPC (4)
1.) Must rest on substantial distinctions
2.) Must be germane to the purpose of the law
3.) Must apply to present and future cases
4.) Must apply equally to all members of the same class

-The case of Ichong: what is the distinction involved? (what is being classified) - aliens vs. Filipino citizens (local retailers vs. foreign
retailers)
-Is that substantial classification? -Yes
-What is germane? -- Relevant to the topic in consideration
-What did the court say about this classification? = there was a valid classification since it was intended to protect the businesses of
the Filipinos

-Villegas case: what is the substantial difference involved here? --> aliens who are working that are non-residents vs. local
employees/workers
-Are the occupations classified?
*Villegas and Ichong classifications are the same= aliens vs. locals
-Villegas: it deprives the right of aliens of their right to livelihood
-If the classification in Villegas is NOT valid, why was it VALID in Ichong? -- because there was a real threat to the economy
-What is the purpose of the classification of Ichong? -- to limit the growing retail trade business of aliens (to avoid their dominance);
in order to prioritize the retail trade of Filipinos
-Villegas case: the said ordinance does not validly classify aliens since they are deprived of their right to livelihood
-Requisites for valid classification of the EPC (4)
-In the Villegas, are all of the requisites violated? - the fourth requisite was not met; since an alien employee (regardless of their
work situation), are charged for the same amount (P50)

-In the case of Dumlao: what are the classifications?

-In the Ormoc Case: there was no classification since the ordinance was exclusively applicable to Ormoc (violated the requisite that
it must apply to present and future cases)

-Case of Dumlao: classification is retired elective official that has received payment of the retirement benefits vs. the young blood

-What was the classification in the Basco case? = PAGCOR vs. other forms of gambling
-What was the EPC that was violated? = fourth requisite (must apply equally to all members belonging in the same class)
-The petitioner in the Basco case has claimed that gambling also involves prostitution and other activities as such
-Does the court allow other forms of gambling to be in one class? - No.
-Then what are these other classes?
-What is the difference between small-town lottery and PAGCOR?
-Is small-town lottery allowed?
-Classification in Basco case is regulated gambling vs. illegal gambling

-Assoc. of small landowners: consolidation of the various cases; sugar producers, as well as the private landowners (that they
should share the same burden)
-Not classifying may also NOT violate the EPC just like the case of the Assoc. of small landowners

-Classifying the paupers and the non-paupers in the case of Binay --> considered as a valid classification
-Are there substantial distinctions? -Yes.
-What is the purpose of the ordinance? --> for social justice
-Does it apply to existing conditions and to future conditions? -- Yes.
-Applying all members of the same class -- Yes.
-Case of NPC vs. De Guzman: what are the classifications?
-There is substantial distinction between the PNP and the Philippine Constabulary
-The local police and the members of the Philippine Constabulary were all integrated in the INP
-Who are the petitioners? the members who are mandated to retire
-What are contained in the transitory provisions?
-Who are covered by these transitory provisions? -- the local police
-Does this cover the members of the Philippine Constabulary? - No. That is why they are complaining.
-The PC are complied to retire at age 56 (military)
-With the new law, they will retire at 56; but there is a four year transitory period
-The PC was complaining since the four-year transitory does not apply to them
-What are the classifications involved in this case? -the PC and those who used to be in the PC, and those who used to be in the
PNP (local police forces)
-What did the Court say: no violation of the EPC; there is substantial distinction between PNP and PC

-Himagan Case: why are they being suspended? -because they are under investigation of a criminal act
-What are the classifications here? regular employee vs. police
-What is their complaint? (about the 90-day suspension under the CSC in comparison to another law which terminates the
suspension whenever the case is finished)

-Case of Tablarin: what are the classifications? - the cut-offs, the passing percentage

-Case of Lim: Jai-Alai (PD 771)

-What is jai-alai? -- close to handball and squash (it is a betting game)
-Why is EPC an issue in this case?
-Compare the Lim case to the Ormoc Sugar case: the ordinance in Lim considered all jai-alai games

-Prado case: what are franking privileges? - not paying for postage
-It removed the franking privileges of the judiciary
-What is the purpose of the law? - it was to make the postal system more efficient and for revenue's sake as well

-Sison vs. Ancheta case:

-Who is Ancheta? -- He was the former BIR Commissioner
-Who are engaged in professional work? -- ex.) lawyers, doctors,
-What is overhead expense?
-Because the professionals have overhead expenses such as office supplies; whereas salary employees you cannot deduct
anything (the professionals can have deducted expenses)

-Telebap case: print vs. broadcast media; considered as a valid classification

-Case of Tiu vs. CA: the residents of Subic are the one's contesting
-What is the classification involved: between the residents outside the fence and those factories
-Considered as a valid classification

-Lacson case: The classification is those who have started the trial and those that have not
-What makes these two different? What makes it important?

-Case of Soriano: probation case; valid classification between those who have money for civil liability and those who don't
-What is the probation law?
-What is the petitioner claiming?
-Why does the petitioner have civil liability? - because of the damages that were incurred by the victim

-Case of Loong and Quisumbing

-Case of Dimaporo: what is Dimaporo claiming?

-What are the other things being questioned?
-What about timing? -Mangotara filed his claim before the revision (so there was substantial distinction)
-Case of Central Bank: SSL (salary grade of 19 and below)
-What is the SSL: it is a law that standardizes the salary of all government employees
-What is the doctrine of relative constitutionality: when there is a valid portion and an invalid portion in the law, the valid portion shall
subsist
-What is the normal standard of scrutiny in EPC cases? --

(ex.) in the Ermita case, it was mentioned there, that when the law was challenged for constitutionality, that the burden of proof is on
the person who alleges that the law is unconstitutional -- presumption of constitutionality)

-Case of Serrano vs. Gallant:

-After chief officer, what is lower? -- second officer
-What are the classifications involved?
-What is his claim? -- he has a lower claim than those who have a fixed term
-What does the fixed term?
-What level of scrutiny was applied by the Court? (3 levels: strict, intermediate, rational)
-What is usually used? -rational scrutiny: legitimate state interest and the classifications are rationaly related to government interest
-Strict scrutiny: compelling state interest
-Intermediate: there must be an important state interest; and it must be substantial
-Where does rational scrutiny apply? -- in almost all cases; that is why there is such a thing as a presumption of constitutionality (for
as long as it is not unreasonable, the court will sustain it)
-Strict scrutiny test was applied in the case of Gallant
*The three levels of scrutiny is based on US Jurisprudence (not normally used in the Philippines; the traditional test used is
RATIONAL SCRUTINY because of the presumption of constitutionality)
*The strict scrutiny test is used in racial discrimination
*Rational scrutiny test --> almost always papasa iyan; the court will say that the legislature knows what its doing
*Strict scrutiny --> almost always the government will lose
*The Central Bank Case: the majority and ponente applied strict scrutiny test since the working class is a protected class (just like in
the Serrano case; the OFWs are a protected class)
*Strict scrutiny should apply in the Philippines since it involves fundamental rights (BoR)

-Case of Dimayuga:
-*CoA vs. Gabor --> why do they want to be treated similarly to this case?

-Case of Disini: *Read on your own*

-Biraogo case: there was no substantial distinction between the Arroyo administration and the previous administration

-Garcia vs. Drilon case: She was suing her husband under VAWC law
-The classification is between women and men (considered to be valid)
-There are three reasons as to why the classification is substantial:
1.) Women are usually victims
2.) They are historically and scientifically more vulnerable and weaker than men
3.) History of gender bias

*Read Chapter 1 of Riano and the Rules of Court (CrimPro)

Riano: described an overview of a criminal judicial process

*Know the stages of criminal procedure
-What is the start? = a crime is committed
-What is the end? = judgment and appeal
-Why does the judge need to determine if there is probable cause?

Second post:

Recitation notes for Wednesday, February 13, 2019:

-Case of Valmonte vs. De Villa : why did Valmonte question the checkpoints? - since it violates Article 3, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution
-What are the requirements for a checkpoint to be acceptable? (visual search only); no inspection with the things inside the car
-What kind of government actions are offered under this section?: issuance of warrant of arrests and search warrants
-Are all searches and seizures prohibited under this section? What are not prohibited -those that are determined upon probable
cause which is decided through personal determination by the judge
-What is issued?
-Why would a citizen's arrest would be allowed?: for the promotion of peace and order; immediate apprehension; Like what?
-What will you now do when you arrest someone?
-Why would you bring that arrested person in the nearest police station?
-Can you give us section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
-What is a search warrant?
-Case of Guanzon vs. De Villa (saturation drives)
-Were there search warrants in the case of Guanzon? -No.
-What happened to the petitioners in the Guanzon case? Were they granted relief? Did the court say that the police cannot do what
they did?
-What are effects? - Personal belongings
-What are papers? - Personal documents (love letters are included)
-What do you mean by seizures? - the act of capturing someone by force
-Where will you seize the thing?
-Give the case of People vs. Marti
-What is Marti's recourse?; Article 32 of the New Civil Code
-Marti cannot sue because there was a contract
-*Deposition: a written document which contains a statement, used as evidence
-*Affidavit: used in court as a statement with oath or affirmation (can be used as evidence)

-What is probable cause?- such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to conclude that there was a
commission of an offense
-In a search, what can be seized? - Rule 126, Section 3 (3 things); personal property, embezzled goods, as well as things that are
used to commit a crime

-Case of Bache vs. Ruiz

-What did they say in Stonehill vs. Diokno case?

-Was there a warrant? (Bache Case): yes. Issued by judge ruiz

-Was there anything wrong in the warrant issued by Ruiz
-What was violated under Section 2: judge was not able to determine if there was probable cause, since he only relied on the
stenographer's notes
-What was the other issue of the Bache Case?
-Who can claim redress for the corporation? -the Board
-Are individuals protected against any searches and seizures? - No.
-When can searches and seizures be effected? - upon the issuance of a search or warrant of arrest from a judge (with probable
cause); if the search and seizure is REASONABLE
-What is a reasonable search and seizure? (when is it allowed?)

-Case of Stonehill vs. Diokno

-Who was Stonehill? -He was a US Army guy who stayed behind after WWII and delved in surplus goods of Americans and became
rich and cornered the tobacco market (eventually became a target)
-What is the requirement for the particularity of description according to the court? How will they know? - specific description of the
thing
-What can be seized by a search warrant according to the rules of court? (3)
-Can real property be seized? - No. Only real persons.

-What are the personal properties that can be seized? (3)

-Case of Alvarez: mere hearsay; no personal knowledge of the witness

-What is that test? - charged with perjury
-What is the other issue of the case of Alvarez: regarding the search warrant
-What are the contents of the search warrant?
-What did the search warrant say about the things to be seized?
-Case of Stonehill: you did not know what crime the corporation was committing; in the case of Alvarez, you know what crime was
committed (Usury)

-Who will describe the particularity?: the search warrant

-Case of Burgos
-Is it necessary that the person to be searched is the one who committed the crime? -No
-Then what is necessary? - it should be in connection with the crime

-Case of Soliven: personal determination of the judge

-What is the role of the judge?
-What if the information gathered by the prosecutor is not enough? - then the judge shall call over the complainant and the
witnesses; can require the parties to provide extra evidence
-Who is an applicant in the search warrant? - complainant
-What about in an arrest warrant? - the prosecutor/fiscal
-Who will conduct the searching inquiry?
-What happens when a crime is committed? - a complaint will be filed by the aggrieved party before the fiscal
-Then the fiscal will determine whether or not there is probable cause (preliminary investigation or inquest)
-What is the purpose of the prelim. investigation? - to determine probable cause
-What does probable cause mean?
-What is the purpose of determining probable cause in the PI? - WoN the accused will be charged
-Purpose of the prosecutor: to determine if the case should be filed
-Once the arrest warrant is applied for with the judge, is there another determination now of probable cause? -Yes.
-What is now the purpose of the probable cause (through personal determination of the judge)? What is the purpose of the judge? -
to determine if a arrest warrant should be issued
-Two levels: determination of probable cause by the PI and by the Judge
-Arrest warrant --> purpose is not anymore to charge or not; but whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
-Search warrant --> it is just the police or complainant trying to get a search warrant
*(arrest warrant is more rigorous)

-Case of De Silva
-What is a deposition?

-Case of Lim vs. Felix

-Does the judge have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses? - No.
-As stated in Soliven, the judge did not have to personally examine the complainant and witnesses but he can personally review the
reports of the fiscal; he merely relied on the the prosecutor's certification

-Case of Mata
-Case of 20th Century Fox
-What movie was mentioned in the 20th Century Fox case?
(Cocoon); what is the doctrine in this case?; master tape was not produced; so that court said that how can we determine if
something was copied if the original was not produced? (a matter/question of evidence)

-Case of Nolasco vs. Pano: subversive document; considered as a question of law and not a question of fact; claim of a fruit of a
poisonous tree; Search incidental to a lawful arrest
-The MR of the Nolasco case has the dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee; it became the majority opinion
-This cannot be a search incidental to arrest; arrest is lawful since rebellion is a continuing crime; although the complainant was far
away from his house, so the search incidental to the lawful arrest is NOT valid
-Incidental to valid arrest: the search must be within the vicinity of his control; but search must come AFTER THE ARREST

-People vs. Malmstedt

Second Post:
Recitation notes for February 20, 2019 (Wednesday):

-What is a search warrant?

-An order to whom? Which officer? (Peace officer)
-Is a search without a warrant allowed? -Yes. According to section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
-What is a reasonable search?
-What are the searches prohibited by the Constitution? -those that are unreasonable
-How is consent given? How does he waive his right?
-Recite the case of People vs. Musa
-Do you issue a search warrant against a person?
-Was there a search warrant issued?
-What was the claim of the prosecution?: considered as a valid search, since it was incidental to a lawful arrest, due to the buy-bust
operation
-Was he validly arrested? -Yes.
-You can search without a search warrant?: generally, no. But there are exceptions. (6 exceptions)
-What does incidental mean?: occurring by chance; in connection to; consequence of
-Why will there be a search after a lawful arrest? Why is it necessary?: to secure peace and order, to obtain deadly weapons
-Describe what a stop-and-frisk is

-Recite the case of Terry vs. Ohio

-How many times did they go back and forth? -a total of 24 times
-How did the policemen found the gun?
-What do you mean by frisk? - by patting
-Was this not a search incidental to a lawful arrest?: No.
-What is the difference?
-What is the requirement for a valid arrest? Why didn't he arrest him first?
-What was his justification for patting the accused?: because of the police officer's experience

-What are the other exceptions to a search without a warrant?

-Recite the case of People vs. Solayao
-What exception was applied in this case? - stop-and-frisk
-Did they allow a stop-and-frisk rule?: No.

-Case of Papa vs. Mago

-Where did the truck come from? - In Pampanga *(take note on the issue of jurisdiction)
-Difference between a dwelling house and a customs search (when it comes to unreasonable searches and seizure)?
-What is the problem with moving vehicles?

-Case of People vs. De Gracia

-Who were the petitioners?
-Why was the search warrant not needed?

-Case of Aniag vs. COMELEC

-What could have the police officers done in such case?
-In a checkpoint, what can the police do?

-What is an arrest?: Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

-What is the purpose of arrest? What is the purpose of taking the person into custody?
-When do you arrest a person? How do you arrest a person?
-What happens in a criminal process? (crim.pro.)
-Can you make an arrest without a search warrant? -Yes. Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court
-Recite Section 2 of the Bill of Rights (1987 Constitution)

-Case of Espano vs. CA

-Was there an arrest warrant? Is that a valid arrest without a search warrant? - Yes. Falls under the exception to the requirements
-What are the exceptions under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court?
-What is a warrant of arrest? What is an arrest?
-What does inflagrante delicto mean?
-What is a buy-bust operation?
-When do you have to implement a search warrant?

-What does it mean when you say "in his presence"? (presence of the police officer)

-Case of Umil vs. Ramos

-Under what exception does this fall under? -Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

-Case of Webb vs. De Leon

-Who issued the warrant of arrest? - Judge De Leon
-What is the procedure for issuing the warrant of arrest?
-What is the procedure for determining probable cause?
-What is the purpose of determining probable cause by the prosecution? to determine if the case should be filed
-What does section 2 say?
-What did the SC say in the Soliven vs. Makasiar case regarding the judge determining probable cause?

-Case of People vs. Sucro

-Was Sucro caught on the act? - No. It falls under the second exception of Section 5 Rule 113

-Case of People vs. Rodrigueza

-Was there a search warrant?: No.
-What would be the basis of immediately arresting him (without a warrant)?

-Case of Go vs. CA
-How did the murder case occur? What is the background of the murder?: Go made a counterflow in a street and was stuck with the
car of Maguan (he shot Maguan)
-Go presented himself to the police after 6 days*
-What is Article 125 of the RPC? (what is considered to be an unreasonable time?)
-What does the second exception to Section 5 Rule 113 say?
-Why can't the police claim the validity of the warrantless arrest?: since the offense was committed 6 days ago

-Case of Posadas vs. CA

-Case of People vs. Mengote

-They were also claiming that this was under the stop-and-frisk exception. What did the Court say?
-What is required in the stop and frisk is suspicious belief*

-Case of People vs. Aminnudin

-Can he be arrested without a warrant of arrest? Yes. But he did not do any criminal act on the time he disembarked from the boat
-Valid warrantless arrests?

Recitation Notes for Wednesday, February 27, 2019:

Section 3
what do you mean in any proceeding? -
-What kind of proceeding?
-employed in a company; disciplinary proceeding; opening the drawer and used the money for evidence (can it be used?)

-Case of Ramirez vs. CA

-what is the difference between private communication and private conversation?
-Case of Zulueta = rule of evidence; privilege of communication

-Recite section 4
-Case of Navarro
-What is the ruling?
-Why was it not considered as a private communication?
-What was authenticated? - the recording
-What does it mean when the recording is authenticated?

-Case of Ople vs. Torres

-Who is Torres? Why is Torres the respondent? (Torres is the executive secretary) -since you cannot sue the president
-Where do you find in the constitution the right of privacy? What did the US courts say?
-Do we have a national ID system now?
-What is the data privacy act?
-What is covered by the data privacy act? What kind of information? To whom does this apply?

-Case of Pollo vs. Constantino-David

-What was the two-fold test?

-Case of Vivares
-Writ of Habeas data is separate and not overlapping with the Data Privacy Act

-Alejano case
-Who is Alejano?
-When was this?
-Letters were coming out?
-What is the writ of habeas corpus? (to produce the body - literal meaning)
-What RA was cited? - Acts that defines the rights of those under custodial investigation
-Why was the RA mentioned in the case?

Section 4
-Case of US vs. O'Brien
-Was there are war during that time?
-Under what law did he violate?
-What was being violated?
-Symbolic speech was violated; his symbolic burning of his draft card?
-Is the symbolic burning considered as speech? -Yes. (it is considered to be a form of expression)
-First Amendment of the US Constitution only included speech; however, jurisprudence already ruled that freedom of speech
includes non-speech and expression as well

-Case of Schenck vs. US

-What is the dangerous tendency?

-Case of People vs. Alarcon

-Who is Luis Taruc - He was the head/commander of the HUKBAHALAP
-There are exceptions to the freedom of speech? What are those?
-In this case, was this an exception? Did the court mention an exception?
-Subjudice rule

-Case of US vs. Bustos

-difference between absolute and qualified privilege
-absolute privilege: privilege speeches in the senate; cannot be held liable

-Section 4 and the case of Lagunzad vs. Gonzales

-*Prior restraint
-What is the balancing of interest rule? (interplay of interest between the State and of a private individual)
-In jurisprudence, what tests or rules are used by the SC involving the freedom of speech
-What is the dangerous tendency rule? (no longer applied)

-The case of Ayer Productions

-What was the ruling of the court?
-Enrile was not part of the movie (they omitted him)

-Case of Borjal vs. CA

-Who sued Borjal? - it was for libel
-What are the qualifications for private communication?
-Fair and due report made in good faith
-Where does this case fall?
-Did Borjal mention the name of Wenceslao?

-Case of Reyes vs. Bagatsing

-What do you mean of redress

-Case of Miller vs. California

-Pornographic materials (considered as a statement of law)
-The court enumerated the development of the definition; how do you determine if a material is obscene?
-Guidelines for the obscenity test?
-What is prurient? (found in the old jurisprudence)

-Case of INC vs. CA

-What is the clear and present danger rule?

-Case of Diocese of Bacolod

-Was the issue of freedom of religion - the doctrine of benevolent neutrality

-Case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance

-What was the tax exemption in the case?
-What about the freedom of religion? (The Bible Society); what did the court say about this?
-What is the difference between the American Bible Society and the Philippine Bible Society case?

-Case of Malabanan vs. Ramento

-Case of Dela Cruz vs. CA

-Case of Bayan vs. Ermita

-what is the calibrated pre-emptive response