Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law Outline
Constitutional Law Outline
Outline
March-April, 2017
May 1, 2018
March 2021
February 10, 2022
CITIZENSHIP
(Article IV, 1987 Constitution)
Effect of repatriation.
R.A. No. 9225 (The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003)
These are the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power of
taxation. These are inherent to the State, co-terminus with the State. Once the State
comes into being, they become operative. Hence, there is no need of any grant of
these powers to the State.
Local governments cannot possibly have inherent powers, unlike the State itself,
since they are mere creatures of the legislature. Whatever power that they may validly
exercise are those that have been delegated to them, or those that can be implied from
the delegated powers.
With respect to the power of taxation, it is the Constitution itself that delegated
the power to local governments, and the delegation may be found in Sec. 5, Art. X of
the Constitution, subject only to such limitations as Congress may prescribe, consistent
with the policy on local autonomy.
With respect to the police power, it is Congress that delegated the power to local
governments, and the delegation may be found in their respective charters, as well as
in Sec. 16 (The General Welfare Clause) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A.
Act No. 7160).
With respect to the power of eminent domain, it is also Congress that delegated
the power to local governments, and the delegation may also be found in their
respective charters as well as in Sec. 19 (Eminent Domain of R.A. Act No. 7160).
This is the most pervasive, the least limitable among the powers of the State as
it affects not only property and property rights, but even liberty and life, for the
promotion of the general welfare.
Any human activity may be subject to the police power to promote the general
well-being of the community, i.e., promote public health, public safety, public morals,
public order, public welfare.
See:
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA 31,
Dec. 12, 1997 (Romero)
City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
This involves taking of private property by the State for public use.
Requisites for the Proper Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain
Distinguished from Police Power with the Respect to the Element of “Taking.”
In eminent domain, the property to be taken must be private property, and the
property will be converted to public use or purpose. For that matter, there must be
payment of just compensation as mandated by to Sec. 9 of the Bill of Rights.
“Taking,” in the constitutional sense, involves not merely the actual physical
dispossession of the property owner of his property; it may include impairment of the
use of his property for the original purpose for which it was intended. (See: U.S. v.
Cosby)
The provisions of the law (CARL) limiting ownership of private agricultural lands
is an exercise of police power for the promotion of social justice and the general
welfare. On the other hand, since the area in excess of the retention limit provided by
law will have to be taken from the owners to be distributed among intended farmer-
beneficiaries, what is involved is an exercise by the State of the power of eminent
domain and, therefore, the landowner is entitled to be paid just compensation. (See:
Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation for without taxes the government cannot
function.
Tax laws are strictly construed against the government and liberally interpreted
in favor of the taxpayers as taxes are burdens or impositions on the people.
On the other hand, tax exemptions are liberally interpreted in favor of the
government and strictly construed against the taxpayer because of the lifeblood
doctrine. For that matter, one who claims tax exemption has the burden of proving
that he is entitled to such exemption.
General Considerations
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are the Civil and Political Rights.
They are limitations on the powers of the State, limitations on the powers of
government.
The SC answered this question in the affirmative in Ople v. Torres (GR No.
127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141 [Puno]). After all, the essence of privacy is the
right to be let alone. It is expressly recognized in Section 3 (The Right to Privacy of
communication and Correspondence) of the Bill of Rights. Other facets of privacy right
are found in other sections of the Bill of Rights, i.e., Sections 1 (The Right to Due
Process of Law and the Right to the Equal Protection of the Law), 2 (The Right against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), 6 (The Right to Liberty of Abode, Liberty of
Changing the Same Abode, and the Right to Travel), 8 (Freedom of Association, which
includes Freedom Not to Associate) and 17 (The Right against Self-incrimination).
The first eleven (11) sections (Sections 1 – 11) of the Bill of Rights pertain to the
civil and political rights in general, while the remaining eleven (11) sections (Sections 12
– 22) focus on the rights of an accused.
There are four (4) provisions of the Bill of Rights governed by the exclusionary
rule on evidence such that any evidence obtained in violation of any of the four will not
be admissible for any purpose in any proceeding, it being incompetent evidence. These
are:
Presumption
Comment:
- Substantive – requires that the law itself is fair, reasonable and just - not
merely the procedure by which the law is enforced.
The equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality; what it merely
guarantees is equality among equals. As formulated, it means that persons or things
similarly situated as to rights conferred and obligations imposed should be treated
similarly; conversely, if they are not similarly situated, they are not to be treated
similarly.
For this reason, not all classifications are invalid under the equal protection
clause. There may be a valid classification for as long the following requisites are
present:
General Rule: For a search or an arrest to be valid, there must be a search warrant
or warrant of arrest.
A search warrant has a limited duration (within ten days after issuance); a
warrant of arrest has no duration (the only requirement is that the warrant officer must
make a report thereon to the court after ten days).
- Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest (Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court)
(See: Nolasco v. Cruz-Pano)
- Plain View Search (People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, Jan. 22, 1999, En Banc
[Puno, J.])
- Customs Searches
- Administrative Searches
- Arrest of an Escapee
Cases to read:
Alejano v. Cabuay (The right to privacy of communication and correspondence
of pre-trial detainees)
Ople v. Torres (GR No. 127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141 [Puno]) (Right to
Privacy)
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of the Press (See: Chavez v. Gonzales, GR. No. 168338, Feb. 15,
2008, En Banc [Puno])
- Freedom of Assembly
The protection includes even “freedom for the thought we hate.” It is in this
context that the so-called “heckler’s veto” must be understood.
The “clear and present danger” test is the test to be employed to justify such
limitation to freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms, like freedom of
religion. This test superseded the so-called “dangerous tendency rule” which had long
been rendered obsolete.
- See: Osmena v. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447, March 31, 1998 {Mendoza, V.V.)
Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999, 2nd Div (Bellosillo)
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460, Sept. 15, 1999, En Banc
(Mendoza)
- Freedom to Act on One’s Belief – may be subject to State regulation once the
belief is externalized and it will now affect public peace, public morals, public
safety and public welfare.
What are purely ecclesiastical affairs of the Church which may not be validly
interfered with by the State following this doctrine? (See: Pastor Dionisio V. Austria v.
NLRC)
See: The Diocese of Bacolod et al. v. COMELEC, GR No. 205728, Jan. 21, 2015,
En Banc (Leonen) on the power of the COMELEC to limit expressions made by the
citizens – who are not candidates or political parties – during elections.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
The right to travel involves the right to travel within the country and the right to
travel outside the country.
- Does the right to travel (outside the country) include the right to return to
one’s country? (See: Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 [1989])
Freedom of Information
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
This provision is a limitation on the power of eminent domain of the State so that
if the State would like to take away private property and convert it to public use, the
State must pay just compensation and observe due process.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
This is a set of rights popularly referred to as the Miranda rights (derived from
the American case of Miranda v. Arizona). At this stage (custodial investigation), the
person is not yet an accused as there is yet no case filed against him. He is merely a
suspect.
- The right to be informed that the suspect has the right to remain silent; that
any statement he may give may be used in evidence against him.
- He will have to be informed that he has the right to have an independent and
competent counsel preferably of his own choice.
RA No 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and
Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof)
This is a special penal law enacted pursuant to Section 12, par. 4, Article
III above cited.
The Two (2) Kinds of Involuntary or Coerced Confessions under Section 12,
and the Presumptions (See: People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190, May 17, 2000, 2 nd Div.
[V.M. Mendoza])
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance
as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be allowed.
The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of an accused
in a criminal proceeding.
The main purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during trial of
the criminal case, or that the accused will not abscond during the pendency of the case.
- Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18, 2015
(Bersamin)
- Joselito V. Narciso v. Flor Marie Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504, March
17, 2000, 3rd Div. (Panganiban)
A condition imposed by the judge that before an accused may be allowed to post
bail he must be arraigned first was declared unconstitutional because it will violate two
(2) important rights of an accused, i.e., the right not to be put on trial except upon a
valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him in court, and the right to bail;
itself. (Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321, Feb. 1, 2000, 2nd Div. [Mendoza])
Trial in Absentia
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
This right may be invoked not only in a criminal case, but even in administrative
proceedings that partake of a criminal nature
This may even be invoked during inquiries in aid of legislation in the Congress,
and even in impeachment proceedings.
Immunity Statutes
If an accused is given some kind of immunity by the State in exchange for his
testimony against his co-accused in a criminal case, he may no longer validly invoke his
right against self-incrimination. That is the very purpose of an immunity statute.
Our immunity statutes are of American origin. In the United States, there
are two types of statutory immunity granted to a witness. They are the
transactional immunity and the use-and-derivative-use immunity. Transactional
immunity is broader in the scope of its protection. By its grant, a witness can no
longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out of the act or
transaction. In contrast, by the grant of use-and-derivative-use immunity, a
witness is only assured that his or her particular testimony and evidence derived
from it will not be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution. (Mapa,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, 797-798, April 26, 1994, En Banc [Puno])
Exceptions
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall
be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Mere extinguishment of life alone does not constitute cruel, degrading, inhuman
punishment. To be such, it must involve prolonged agony and suffering; it refers more
to the nature of the punishment to be inflicted upon a convict, i.e., that which is
shocking to the conscience of mankind under contemporary standards. (See: Leo
Echegaray v. Court of Appeals)
The power to re-impose the death penalty for certain heinous crimes is vested in
the Congress; not in the President. After all, the power to define crimes and impose
penalties is legislative in nature.
The word “debt” in this provision refers to an obligation arising from contract.
1. Double jeopardy for the same offense (First sentence, Section 21 of the Bill of
Rights)
2. Double jeopardy for the same act (Second sentence of the same section)
Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
(e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
accused. (Cuison v. CA, 289 SCRA 159, April 15, 1998 [Panganiban])