You are on page 1of 23

FEBRUARY 13, 2016

the evidence on the ground that his right of privacy has been
violated.

Sec. 2 Unreasonable Search and Seizures

Q: Is he correct?

When search warrant issued is based on:

A: No because it was the security guard (private individual)


who seized the shabu.

1.

Probable cause

2.

Personally determined by the judge

3.
After examination under of oath of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce
4.
Describe particularly the things, persons, place to be
searched
Q: Under the writ of amparo, under what constitutional basis
that you may justify the issuance of the writ of amparo?
A: Writ of amparo is issued by the court for the purpose of
protecting anyone whose right to life, liberty, or security is
violated or threatened to be violated.
Q: Where can you find security as constitutional basis?
A: In relation to writ of amparo, you now go to section 2.
Section 2 now you have the right to be SECURE in your person
or home or papers and effects insofar as privacy.
Q: Take note of zones of privacy, what are these?

invoked

Q: Is that evidence admissible?


A: No because search was illegal. Evidence was fruit of illegal
search therefore inadmissible.
Q: Who are these law enforcers being referred to?
A: PNP, CIDG, NBI
Q: What about a brgy tanod? If he searches a contraband and
seizes it, is there a violation?
A: No because a brgy tanod is considered an agent of a
person in authority
Q: Brgy. Intelligence Police?
A: Considered as law enforcers

A: There are two zones: 1. SECTION 2 RIGHT AGAINST


UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES and 2. PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE (invoked by the
students of STC)
STC case pictures through fb
communication and correspondence

EX if the security guard without any basis seized the shabu


(maybe because of some reports that this man is going to
take the vessel). The shabu was seized by the police and filed
a case against that man.

privacy

of

The right to privacy right to be left alone (do not touch me,
do not do anything physically, mentally, physiologically)
protected by law
These two pertain to your zones of privacy.
This right is enjoyed by natural persons, juridical persons
(corporations) except when they are required to open their
books or accounts to determine whether they have complied
with the law in the exercise of police power or they have
complied with the taxation laws. BUT ultimately corporations
enjoy these rights.
Q: Can aliens enjoy these rights? Can they demand this?
A: Yes, these rights are enjoyed by natural persons and aliens.
EX somebody is touching or frisking you, your person found
shabu in your pockets. And so this seatmate of yours
surrendered the shabu to a policeman and because of that
policeman arrested you. You filed a case in court.
Q: Is that shabu admissible as evidence?
EX in ayala, they check on your bag. When you enter, they
frisk you but not as thorough.
Q: If indeed contraband are found in your bag and confiscated
by the SG, are they admissible evidence in court?
A: Yes because no violation of any right. You are not protected
against the intrusion by a private individual. You cannot
invoke this right if it is a private individual that intrudes your
privacy as a person.
So if private individual, walay kaso. You can sue that person
for sexual harassment, for acts of lasciviousness, or unjust
vexation BUT never under this provision.

Q: Bantay bayan?
A: SC said a bantay bayan is not even connected with
government. This is a volunteer group in the community.
Volunteering to safeguard peace and order in the brgy.
CASE involving a rape case, the rape case without being
informed of his constitutional right after he was arrested by
bantay bayan confessed to the bantay bayan that he
committed the crime. That confession was testified to by the
bantay bayan. He testifies against the rapist. Now, the
accused complained that the confession is not admissible
because he is a law enforcer, he should have been informed
of his constitutional right as an obligation of a law enforcer
who makes the arrest. Bantay bayan said he is not a law
enforcer but a private individual who is a member of a
volunteering group. SC said he is considered a law enforcer
because he performs the functions and tasks of a law enforcer
in the community. Then in which case he should be informed
of his constitutional right so that any confession or admission
made by a suspect to him as a law enforcer is inadmissible if
not informed of his consti rights.
Q: Similarly, if a bantay bayan is going to seize contraband
from a person without a search warrant, is that admissible?
A: No. Illegal search.
Q: AFP?
A: No, they are not law enforcers. They are members of the
AFP and their task is to protect the state, political sovereignty
and territorial integrity from outside threats BUT not to
maintain peace and order.
Q: But what if they were called upon the president to assist
the civilians?
A: In other words, there has to be an order from the president
that they assist in the maintenance of peace and order then
they become law enforcer (assisting the civilian authority).
Should they make searches and find contraband and it may
not be admitted if there is no warrant.
SCOPE OF PROTECTION

Q: Against is this right that you are protected from?

1.

A: Only against law enforcers. Agencies of the govt tasked


with the enforcement of the law if a police man searches
your body without a warrant, any evidence obtained in
violation of that right is inadmissible in any proceedings

Q: How is this intruded?

EX a security guard of a passenger vessel found prohibited


drugs inside the bag of one of the passengers. He turned it
over to the PNP, police then filed a case against the owner of
the bag. Now, the owner of the bag asks for the exclusion of

Person

A: Frisking. But not only limited to physical search or body


search. It includes also psychological search, the integrity of
his body which includes his internal organ.
EX when you apply for drivers license, you are required to
undergo drug test. Is it not an intrusion into privacy because it
is your body being searched through your blood or breathing?

RA 9165, if charged with criminal offense you are required to


undergo drug test. Should you not complain?

3. Means used in the commission of crime (weighing scale in


the case of shabu, motorcycle, gun)

When you run for public office, you are likewise required to
undergo drug test. What if nagkataon you are found to be
positive because you are taking antibiotics or other drugs.

Q: If you suspect is into illegal activity, can you just go his


house, make a sure, and seize any contraband that may be
found in his house?

Is it not an intrusion into your privacy?

A: GR NO! because illegally seized.

A: In the case of SGS vs PDEA, SC said those provisions are


unconstitutional because they intrude the privacy of the
person guaranteed under section 2. The right against
unreasonable search and seizure.

Q: What must you do?

Q: What if for example the college of law will do drug testing


now (unscheduled), can you invoke that decision of the
supreme court?
A: While it is true that the SC said insofar as public officials
and those charged of criminal offenses. SC however said that
in the exercise of police power, drug test may be mandated in
order to curb this drug problems.
So it becomes mandatory insofar as the test is RANDOM. As
long as it is not mandatory, it may only allow random drug
test, this is made applicable to students in tertiary and
secondary school. And even in govt offices and private offices,
as long as testing is done randomly. Meaning unscheduled and
no particular individuals. So you have to make a qualification.
Take note those provisions relating to requirements (public
office
and
charged
with
criminal
offense

UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
What is now allowed is RANDOM DRUG TEST.
As regards to the LTO, this requirement of drug test, there are
still many drivers especially PUJ PUV drivers did not curb the
drug problem. So they said the drug test would be stopped
because it became a source of corruption. So they had instead
require the MANDATORY DRUG TEST for first applicants, if it is
just a renewal that was lifted the requirement. You probably
heard this random drug test in the road and that is acceptable
as long as random. (More effective way of curbing drug
problem)
2.

Homes

Considered as your castle and therefore no one can enter


unless you give your permission or the law enforcer has a
search warrant.
Should they insist, they can be charged with qualified
trespassing and the penalty is very high or if you lose things
in the course of search by these police, you can charge them
robbery or theft.
3.

Personal belongings

They cannot be searched without a warrant.


GR: Seizure of things without warrant is unreasonable and if
unreasonable, it is unconstitutional

A: Report it to the authorities barangay or police


Q: Once you inform the police, can the police rely on your
report and go directly to the place where you think the illegal
activity is being committed? Can they now do the search
based on a
reliable information coming from you?
A: No, they cannot. They have to have a search warrant.
Q: Can they now apply for search warrant?
A: No, they cant because that information must be based not
on any reliable information but be based on own personal
knowledge of facts indicating that a crime has been
committed and the things to be searched and seized are
found in that place.
Q: So what to do if they cannot go?
A: They have to conduct a surveillance. They have to go to the
place, they can go pose as buyers (ex. Illegal gambling and
pretend to be a bettor and get evidence). If successful in
getting evidence then they have personal knowledge now.
Then they have to execute sworn statements (why because if
granted this will intrude the privacy of person and to make
sure that it will not be used as an instrument of harassment
against the person subject of the warrant, this person must
swear that he is not into illegal activity because if untrue that
guy can run after him and he can be sued for perjury and
damages). The officers must submit sworn statements. Then
submit to the court.
Q: What the court now do?
A: There has to be personal determination of probable cause
by the judge.
Q: What is probable cause?
A: Probable cause are set of facts and circumstance prior to
the application of the search warrant that would lead a
reasonable man to believe that a crime was committed and
the things that are to be searched and seized are found in the
place that one is applying for a search warrant.
Q: How does the court determine probable cause?
A: The court must do a summary hearing. All witnesses will be
presented in court and the court will make a searching
question and answer. To make sure that these applicants have
personal knowledge of the commission of the crime and
personal knowledge as to the existence of things that may
have been used in the commission of the crime or its fruits.

Q: When can you therefore justify a search and seizure?


Search on the person of suspect, home
Seizure personal belongings or his person through warrant of
arrest
IOW, to justify search and seizure there has to be SEARCH
WARRANT or WARRANT OF ARREST
Q: What is a search warrant?

CASE subject of the search died (he was not killed). He died
perhaps because of the tension upon knowing that there was
a search warrant issued against him. It involved illegal
gambling. This person was a financier. Take note of the
requirement in the issuance of search warrant, effectivity is 10
days only.
1.
You have to particularly state the place to be
searched (with sketch and details as to the location). Now it is
easier because we already have google maps, they only Xerox
copy the google map.

A: It is an authority issued by the court directing the law


enforcers to search a place where the things that may
establish the commission of the crime or that may connect
the accused to the crime.

Q: Do you need to present the certificate of title, titulo sa


yuta? Because it indicates the technical description of the
location of the place/property.

Q: What are the subjects of a search warrant? Three items


that you may ask for a search warrant

Q: Is it required to present a tax declaration? Because in the


tax dec, there is the boundaries.

A:
1. When the evidence is subject of the crime
(contraband, shabu, unlicensed firearem)

A: No, you dont need to present those documents what is


IMPORTANT YOU CAN LOCATE BY THE SKETCH WHERE THE
PLACE IS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE WILL BE HARASSED OR
INTRUDED BY THE ATTACK.

2. When it is the fruit of the crime (ex the fruit of shabu is


the proceeds of sale or money
received from selling)

2.
Enumeration of the things to be searched. It has to
be stated in the warrant itself. Why? Because anything can be
seized and thats robbery already hahaha
EX search and seize all pornographic items, so everything
can be seized.
Burgos case what was stated in the warrant was search and
seize all subversive materials pati ang printing machine it
was seized because allegedly it was used in the production of
subversive materials. But the printing machine per se is
neutral that is not subversive.
SC nullified the warrant being a general warrant.
NOTE: There has to be a particular description of things that
have to be searched and seized.
NOTE: When you served with a search warrant, it is usually a
short bond paper, there is heading, caption, applicant (EX
PNP v Juan Dela Cruz), search warrant number for what? You
have to state a specific offense.
If that specific offense is not found in the face of search
warrant, that warrant is GENERAL (scatter-shot warrant).
Therefore, invalid.
Law requires particular description. Not only the things or
persons to be searched and seized but also the offense to be
charged against person subject of the search.
TAKE NOTE: No case file but you have to state the specific
offense
Q: What would be the consequence if there is no specific
offense stated in the warrant?
A: All things inside your house will be searched and seized for
being evidence or subject or means in the commission of
whatever crime because it is not indicated on the search
warrant
EXCEPTION:
1.
There may be set of offenses stated in the warrant if
these sections of the law constitute also separate crimes
EX illegal drugs (Sec. 11 - possession, 12 - paraphernalia, 5
drug pushing). A search warrant may indicate all the sections
because they refer to the same law RA 9165.
AGAIN, requirements of valid warrant:
1.
judge

Personal determination of probable cause by the

Only a judge can issue a search warrant

Because prior to the 1987 constitution, a mayor can


issue a search warrant because the law says personally
determined by a judge or any person as may be authorized by
law. Bright kaayo si Marcos, he issued a PD authorizing
himself to issue the search warrant thus issued ASSO (Arrest,
search, and seizure order). Anyone who is critical against his
administration, he searched and then arrested and put him to
jail and disappears. AND HEAVILY CRITICIZED.
Name ASSO was changed to PCO (Presidential
commitment order) and further changed to Preventive
Detention Authority (PDA) arrested to prevent from causing
danger to peace and order of the community hangtod mo
disappear and the court cannot inquire into the legality of
arrest kay martial law to
-

In 1987 constitution, only a judge can issue a warrant

Q: But then again kana lagi Bureau of Customs and when


goods found to be smuggled, isnt it that they just seized the
smuggled goods and then forfeit them in favor of govt. Isnt it
a violation of the constitution that says probable cause can
only be determined by a judge for the purpose of issuing a
search warrant or warrant of arrest?
Take the case of Bureau of Immigration, if an alien is found to
be overstaying, do you know that the commissioner of Bureau
of Immigration can issue an arrest order so that he can be
deported.
A: To both questions, YES. They are valid.

Q: How to reconcile?
A: Insofar as the admin officers seizing smuggled goods or
arresting an undesirable alien, there is NO investigation
neither a prosecution anymore after their arrest or declaration
of illegality of items. Immediately they carry out the final
finding of violation of the law.
Q: How does the Bureau of Customs do that?
A: By simply forfeiting the smuggle goods in favor of govt
Q: How about insofar as the illegal alien?
A: By simply deporting him
Take note: where the arrest/search/seizure is for the purpose
of carrying out a FINAL FINDING of violation of law then it may
be issued by an administrative officer. BUT if the purpose of
the search/arrest is for investigation/prosecution then that
would require the court to issue a search warrant (because no
final finding yet).
FEBRUARY 15, 2016
This must be applied for three reasons for any of relations? Wa
ko kasabot btaw
1. You will use it as evidence which is the subject of the crime.
For example, shabu is the subject of a crime in an illegal
possession of prohibited drugs case.
2. Fruit of the crime. You may not find shabu but if you can
establish that he was selling shabu, then you may confiscate
the money being the proceeds or the fruits of the crime.
3. It could be the means in committing the crime. What could
be the items that may have been used in committing this
crime involving the drugs. It could be the drugs paraphernalia
or the weighing scale that is used in weighing their drugs or
the firearms being used by the people guarding the place
where you have found the evidence.
Once you are convinced that all these are found in that place
and you apply for search warrant. For police to apply a search
warrant, they are going to submit what they call sworn
statements or the affidavits of the complainant and of the
witnesses. Once submitted, what will the court do? The court
will now determine probable cause. Probable cause always
refer to the fact and circumstances antecedent to the
application of a search warrant you need to include where the
crime was committed and the things that are to be searched
and seized are found in that place that they are applying for a
search warrant. The facts must have been established or must
have existed prior to the application of the search warrant.
Can you apply for a search warrant even without the case
being filed in the courts yet? YES. Precisely you are applying
for it in order to establish the crime and that would lead the
perpetrator to the crime. But it should not be done through a
fishing expedition in looking for evidence in order to indict an
individual that would be harassment. That would not be fair to
a person especially when he is
innocent. That would
encourage planting of evidence.
So then the judge, in the determination of probable cause,
what must he do? He has to conduct this search in question
and answer until he is convinced that there is probable cause
to issue the search warrant.
What would then be the evidence that the applicant must
present the court? Because there will be ex parte hearing.
You are going to present testimonies of witnesses who had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that a crime has been
committed and the things to be searched are found in that
place to apply for a search warrant. After having presented
the evidence, the court if convinced, will now issue the search
warrant. There has to be compliance with particularity. in
particularity, there has to be an indication in the search
warrant of a SPECIFIC offense or particular offense. If there is
no indication, the warrant is invalid for being a general
warrant. if the warrant states several offenses, it is invalid
because that would be considered scatter shot warrant.
Aside from that, there has to be a description of the place with
particularity but that does not need a title or tax declaration
of the location of the area. It is enough that there is a sketch
and the people, the court is assured they know where the
place is and no other person can be the subject or harassment
or intrusion of theit right to privacy by virtue of that search
warrant. Then a description of the things that are to be

searched or seized. How do you consider one as particular


description of thing that are the subject of the search? It must
be those descriptions that do not give to the searching party
the discretion to determine what should be included to the
warrant or not.
For example when the warrant states, all subversive materials
are to be seached. That would not be sufficient as a
description of things to be seized because practically your
giving the decision to the police whether a thing is subversive
or not. That is for the court to decide. Now that will become a
fishing expidition which is not allowed that would be a
violation against unreasonble search and seizure.
Another example, warrant states look for drugs. They found
unlicensed firearm, can they confiscate them? Yes. Because
they are prohibited by law. Contranban man sila. If seized, can
they be used as evidence? Remember that the offense stated
in the warrant is against prohibited drugs. This one is another
offense, illegal possession of firearms. Can you file a separate
case against illegal possession of firearms? Yes. If the seizure
was legal or legitimate. What if they will find jewelries and you
suspect that they have been stolen by those who have been
the subject of the search warrant for illegal drugs. Can you
seize them? No. because you have no personal knowledge
that indeed it was stolen because jewelries are not per se
prohibited by law. If you think they are stolen, they have to
file another search warrant with the particular description of
the jewelries.
The warrant states that you can only search inside the house.
Then you found the drugs at the doorstep, which is outside
the house. You cannot seize the drugs without a warrant
stating that you can search outside the house. The court can
keep it because it is prohibited by law. It cannot be returned
If you are looking for a firearm and in the course of searching
of the firearms you found shabu inside a teacup, it is
impossible to look for a firearm inside a teacup. It is obvious
that you are looking for something else other than s firearm
then in which case, the seizure of the shabu is illegal but it
has to be surrendered to proper authorities but it cannot be
used as evidence.

TAKE NOTE ANI KAY MUGAWAS DAW NI SA IYANG EXAMS THE


UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES HAHAHAHAHA!!!

The same requirements are also being in the issuance of the


warrant of arrest. It is an authority of an order of the court to
seized the person or the perpetrator or the suspect or of the
accused in order for that person to be placed in the custody of
the law and answer the charges against him. It is a warrant
and therefore it must comply with the requirements under the
constitution. There should be a case file in court before a
warrant of arrest is filed against the person. Unlike in the
search warrant you may not have a case yet in court. But for
warrant of arrest before you make arrest of the person or any
suspect, there has to be A CASE FILED IN COURT FIRST
because it is for the judge to personally determine the
probable cause for purposes of investigation and restitution.
If you have complains against the individual you file your case
in the fiscals office not in the court and then the fiscal would
determine the probable cause, if he finds a probable cause
the fiscal files now the case in court.

Is it automatic for the judge to issue the warrant considering


that the cases is already filed in court? No, there is still the
duty of the court which is mandated under the constitution
more or less to determine probable cause.
How is it different from the probable cause already
determined by the fiscal precisely filing the case in court? It is
different because in the fiscal's level it is only to determine
whether a crime was already committed and the person
charge is guilty thereof. Once it reaches the court, now the
court determined whether a crime was probably committed.
Not only that, the judge has to determine whether this person
has committed a crime and guilty thereof and thus precisely
the immediate basing of the cause of the custody of the law.
Thus, the issuance of warrant of arrest.
Should the court do personal determination of the probable
cause? Yes, bec it is required in the constitution.

That does mean that the court has you again summon
complainant and his witnesses for a question and answer in
order to ascertain what the court should issue in the warrant
of arrest? Not necessarily, it's up to the court. If the court may
substantially complied with the requirements by simply
reviewing the records of the preliminary investigation
conducted by the fiscal. And if the court is satisfied and adopt
the finding of probable cause of the fiscal is all right as long
as he make an independent review of the records.
What are the records consist of?
- The resolution of the case
- The affidavit of the complaint
- Counter-affidavit of the respondent
- And respective supporting documents
And if the judge determined that there is probable cause then
the court issues warrant of arrest.
One the specific offense for one warrant of arrest.
And then you have the person to be arrested so that not just
anyone be arrested by the person subject by the warrant. You
need to be particular so that you will not harass anyone.
What must you do to comply with particularity?
- First name
- Middle name
- Surname
- Describe the physical appearance of the accused
Para iwas ma-hit sa NBI sad hahaha
In reality you would not ask the accused na mag-ila2x sa mo.
In many cases you would not know the name of the accused
but you can only describe him through his physical
appearance. Even if you have the name stated in the warrant
if the perpetrator would say it is not his name.
There was a murder case and the person charged is Juan dela
Cruz. The police served the warrant to a person who think to
be Pedro Penduko, so the wife insisted that he was the person
who stabbed her husband. So the police served the warrant to
him, so he insisted that he is not Juan but Pedro but the wife is
persistent so the police has to arrest the person under that
warrant even though it is not his name that was on the
warrant. The police now goes to the court brought with him
the the suspect together with the warrant and then he
approached the judge that the person you have arrested is
Juan Dela Cruz but he is not juan but Pedro Penduko. The
judge said to just put it there that juan dela cruz was
identified by the wife the subject of the warrant as pedro
penduko. Juan dela cruz also known as pedro penduko. In
other words what is important is not the name but actually the
initial description of the person. And you can placed there
instead John doe temporarily if you still didn't know the name.
What is important is not the name actually but the initial
description of the person by the witness. That he can be
positively identified by the witness regardless of the name. (It
is not a defense that the witness cannot identify his name but
only his appearance)
You can even place John Doe, it is sufficient enough. It can
temporarily be John Doe and then interchanged once the
person is arrested and the court will ask his real name.
(Because I had a case before, different names. In one case
she has this name and in another case, it is another, but the
pictures are the same. She denies it because she has a mole
and in the photo there was none. So the police officer
approached her and touched the mole, it was erased. In the
case she had in my court, she jumped bail and didnt show up
in the arraignment thats why we issued a warrant. She then
got arrested again and ince she had a clerk of court who was
good at remembering faces and noticed her. *Also, in posting
of bail, there are times that such location does not exist, will
not be accepted by the court. Example: a Barangay does not
exist with such name, City of Manila, Makati City= they are
two separate cities, certification of residence by an expired
term of a Barangay Captain.)
So that no one else will be harassed by the warrant, it must
bear a particular description.

IS A WARRANT ALWAYS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE


A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF A PLACE? IS A WARRANT OF
ARREST ALWAYS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ARESST?

suspicion and a prior determination of probable


cause and the probable cause must be based on
overt acts. Once the the accused is arrested there
can be a search incidental to that arrest, this search
incidental to that arrest is now comprehensive.)

EXEMPTIONS
1. When a warrant is not against private individual but against
law enforcers
2. Waiver of the right against unreasonable search and
seizure= there is consent; must be a valid waiver. (How is it
valid? These two must conform. He knows he has the right
against unreasonable search and seizure; he freely and
voluntarily relinquish that right/ voluntarily and intelligently
waived his right)
Example: When you enter the malls, we go through the x-ray
machines/ scanner and your bags are looked into by the
security guards. Can you object the search of the guards
without a warrant? Since the property of the mall is a private
place, you should have your bags searched because it is a
requirement. You can always not enter, but if you do, it means
you consented to the search.
Example: when you travel through the airport, seaports and
bus ternimals (Thats why its such a question as to how a
bullet can come into someones luggage. Like that case where
a person from the United States of America was found to have
a bullet in her luggage. The US airport has such a tight
security)

In stop and frisk, what comes first is the search and arrest can
be made if he commits a crime in the presence of an arresting
officer. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, there has to be
arrest first then search. You cannot make a search without a
lawful arrest.
When is an arrest lawful?
When there is a warrant or if there is no warrant it falls under
the exceptions provided under rule 113; such as the person is
in pari delicto, hot pursuit when the person is an escapee from
jail (e.g. There is a person standing by at colon st. His hands
are in his pockets and looking in the skies for mana to come
down. The police arrested him and search made to this person
and found in his possession is a hand grenade.
Is that hand grenade admissible as evidence? Was the search
incidental to a lawful arrest?
It was dismissed because the hand grenade cannot be used
against him since he was arrested without a warrant and
therefore in the first place unlawful.
If there is no lawful arrest there cannot be a lawful search.

FEBRUARY 20, 2016

MUST REMEMBER FOR THE BAR EXAM!

Searches and seizures, for every search there should be a


warrant. But this is not an absolute rule because there are
some exceptions here.

A case involving a motorist who was driving a motorcycle


without wearing his helmet and that flagged down by a police.
Police told the motorist to go with him to the police station so
that he can issue a citation ticket to the motorist, the motorist
is restless. Now the police got suspicious so the he asked him
to put all the things inside his pocket in the table and out of
nervousness he put all his things in the table. Then the police
saw this container and open it and found shabu inside. And so
he was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
The accused was convicted in fact and appealed the decision
of the trial court saying that the shabu should not be used as
an evidence against him because it was illegally seized as
there was no search warrant when it was searched. The
justification of the prosecution was that it was legally seized
because it was incidental to a lawful arrest. The accused was
arrested bec of a violation of a municipal ordinance. SC said
that the prosecution is not correct. When one is charged with
an offense, the penalty of which is only a fine. And so
precisely the accused was not arrested at all, he was at the
police station bec of the issuance of the ticket, he was never
arrested.

When there is consent from the person subject to the search


and he is considered waived that right to invoke against
unreasonable search and seizure. (E.g. In one case asked in
the bar exam there was a police who asked this person to
open her hands and when she opened it there were sachets of
shabu, question admissible or not? Can you say there was
consent on the part of the suspect? Consent to be considered
as a waiver and exception to the requirement of a warrant,
two things must concur:

He must be notified, he has that right either actually


or constructively. Aside from knowledge, knowing
that he has that right he freely, voluntarily,
intelligently waives that right from consenting to the
search without warrant then that will be considered
as a waiver against unreasonable search
and
seizure.

(Back to the question given above, SC decided that mere


acquiescence to the search without a warrant submission as
if he is giving his consent is not considered as valid consent or
waiver because in many circumstances or the police asked
you to do something to the extent requiring you to present
evidence against yourself or allowing you them to search is
more of submitting because your too afraid to the police.
Considering that he is authority, armed there is always that
intimidation and consent is vitiated. Thus, not considered a
valid waiver.

The stop and frisk - (e.g your eyes are red, you're
walking crookedly and then the police stop you right
there and then. Or you looked suspicious lang jud
hahahahaha Can the police do that? SC said that
even merely on the basis of suspicion, you can be
stopped and immediately after stopping you, you can
be frisk or bodily searched. Basically the purpose
there is to prevent the commission of a crime. Crime
prevention ni siya! The frisking is not to protect you
but to protect the person who conducted the frisking
bec the person maybe armed. So this is an allowance
on what we call protective search. Protective search
is limited only to the outer clothing of the suspect. In
the event of the course of search and frisking the
police will find a licensed firearm and it would
emprise to probable cause that he may be
committing a crime then he can be arrested and an
extensive search would be conducted. In order to
justify an extensive search after a stop and frisk take
note that there should be probable cause and overt
acts may committed by the suspect indicating that
his committed a crime. When overt acts committed?
When he committed external acts that would
convince the arresting officer to make an arrest. The
stopping of the person can be based on mere

Then how can you say that the search was incidental to the
arrest when there was never an arrest? If there was no arrest
there cannot be a search incidental, if there is no search the
thing seized is illegal therefor inadmissible evidence.

Another point that to take note a search incidental to a arrest,


if you're to be arrested in one place, the search should be
done within the premises under the control of the person
subject to the arrest. Not that you arrested here in the moot
court and you are asked to come with the authorities to go to
your car to search because planting of evidence is not allowed
that is beyond the control of the person already. It should be
in the moot court that the search must be conducted.

Search at checkpoints or search in a moving vehicle.

Checkpoint is a limitation to your privacy esp to the motorist


who are passing by. There has to be prior notice to the. (At
least 100m away, the motorists can already see the
checkpoint in order for the motorists to have a choice as to
whether pass through or make a detour) You cannot do fishing
expedition if you are to search motor vehicles at the
checkpoints (at the checkpoint you even have to specify the
purpose of the it, example e purpose is operation bakal or
comelec gunban and search would be limited only to such
purpose.) Take note that no comprehensive searches can be
done at checkpoints, it is limited only to the visual search.
Wa'y hikapay, tan-awanay lang hahahaha. You can be asked
to open the lights of the car but cannot be asked to open the
compartments of the car because it is prohibited. (in
motorcycles they are not supposed to open the compartments
but what is usually happening is that the policeman would ask
for documents of the motorcycle then it is usually placed in
the compartment so put it somewhere else haha)

You will noticed that male passengers are made to step down
the jeepney it is because they are wearing pants and in the
visual search of the policemen they cannot see what is under
the seats esp during the night. But they cannot do extensive
search. So it is limited only to visual search in checkpoints.
Moving vehicles - no need of a search warrant for practical
reasons for the reason if they are hiding something then it
can easily flee and when the time you get your warrant then
they will not be there anymore for you. The moving vehicle
must be motorized in order for a search without warrant to be
valid. If you need to search from a tricycad then you need for
a search warrant because there is no urgency since it cannot
flee right away since it is not motorized.
Patalinjug vs Fernandez
There was a witness who testify that the culprit who
assassinated the governor was riding a motorcyle. And later
on the motorcycle was found in a nipahut. The police were so
excited to seized it, got it and brought it to the court and
presented it as evidence. Is the evidence admissible? SC said
that it is not admissible though it is a motorized vehicle but it
is not moving but only parked therefore there was no urgency.
The police should have applied first for a search warrant.
Then there is the evidence in plain view-if you a find a contra
ban and immediately apparent to your eye to your hand like it
is just place in the table; can be seen by anyone-like a gun
that is unlicensed, placed on the table can you seize it without
a warrant? THAT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. When
you find it, there has to be valid intrusion, meaning, your
presence in the premises must be valid or legal. If you went to
that place by trespassing, no warrant, no consent from the
owner, you entered the premises. And when you entered the
house you found the gun on the table, unlicensed. Is that
evidence in plain view? YES. Is that admissible? NO. why? Bc
in the first place you have no right to be in the premises. Can
it be seized? Yes bc bit is prohibited by law; but you cannot
use it as evidence against the person whose right has been
violated. What is then required for you to be in the premises?
-get a warrant
-or if not, ask for the permission of the owner to enter; so if
you are in the house with the consent of the owner even
without a warrant and you found the contra ban, you can
seize it and even use as evidence against the person.
So again, as requirements:
1)
Presence in the premises must be legitimate- your
intrusion into the place where you found the evidence must
be valid;
2)
That the thing/evidence is immediately apparent to
your eye or to your hand; it is not hidden. So if for example, is
the warrant youre looking for a firearm and then you saw
something wrapped by a newspaper place on the table. When
you unwrapped the newspaper, you found out that they were
marijuana leaves. Take note, WARRANT WAS FOR A FIREARM
WHEN NEWSPAQPER WAS UNWRAPPED THEN FOUND
MARIJUANA LEAVES. Question, can they be seized and are
they admissible as evidence? Yes, they can be seized bc they
are prohibited by law, but can they be admitted as evidence
in court? No.
3)
The search has to be by accident in advertence
finding of the evidence bc if the finding is deliberate, even if
your being there is valid, but the looking for it was intentional
then it is not considered as evidence in plain view. Example!
Ang warrant mangita mo ug pusil. The force of looking for the
firearm found inside a teacup was the shabu, question: is the
shabu admissible as evidence? Youre being in the area is
valid cos you have a warrant. In your finding of the shabu was
it valid? NO, bc if you look for a gun you dont look for it in a
teacup. HAHAH bitaw sad noh. Lololololol hahaha. Therefore
that finding was not in advertence, rather by further search
which is prohibited. So cannot be considered as evidence in
plain view.
Now, youre looking for shabu, you suspect that the one
hanging in the kitchen is shabu but you cant be certain bc it
was wrapped in a newspaper, you unwrapped it and it is
shabu is it admissible as evidence. Well ordinary person you
wouldnt know if it is shabu bc it canot be seen righ away by
the eye neither can you touch it bc it was hanging. But then
again you have to make a qualification. For an expert like a
forensic chemist, by the smell alone they will know that it is
shabu. It has a distinct smell. Then in which case it is
immediately apparent to the senses of the expert then it is

admissible as evidence in plain view, as far as the expert is


concerned. So SC held that if it is immediately apparent to
the senses of an expert, then it is admissible as evidence. If
you are an ordinary person then it would not be immediate
apparent to the sense; youd have to do further search, then it
which case that is not admissible as evidence in plain view. In
plain view no further search is required.
Airport is now an established exception to the search. This is a
case of People v Suzuki. The Japanese was in the airport and
they were bringing with them the pasalubong such as boxes
of piyaya which small ones. They passed through the x-ray
and the lights alerted; there was something wrong with the
boxes and so the police airport asked the Japanese can we
open the boxes and they agreed to the opening, and when
they were opened, they found the shabu. So they were
charged with illegal possession of illegal drugs. Now this
piyaya where the shabu was found were then presented as
evidence. They objected to the presentation saying that they
were illegally seized, therefore cannot be admitted. Are they
correct? Was there an illegal seizure? The police were saying
that we asked them if we can open, and they consented to
the opening and the Japanese countered by saying that they
did not understand English so how could they give consent if
they cannot understand what was asked of them. So the
consent was taken consideration here. It was held that even
on airports, your things can be the subject of a search, with or
without consent, cos in the first place, there was consent
already when you bought the ticket, theres a stipulation that
you will subject your luggage for inspection, and the fact that
you bought the ticket means you consented to the conduct of
the search.
Another exception is with respect to when there is exigency or
emergency. Like coup deetat. There is no time for a search
warrant; by the time you have a search warrant kadtong mga
nag coup de etat wala nato dnha. Thats why there is no need
of a search wrrant here, its an exception.
Another example here is saturation drives. Lets say for
example on saturation drives sa lugar nga known na gyud kau
nga daghan mga drug pushers then they would put up a
checkpoint; everybody would who goes here has to pass
through the search as well as everybody who goes out. This
one happened to Honasan. He was know leader of coup
deetat during the time of Aquino until finally Aquino got shot
at. Suko na kau si Cory they wanted to look for Honasan but
he couldnt be found they suspected then that Honasan was
hiding in the house of Enrile. So the police put up saturation
zones so that anyone who enters and gets out of the
subdivision had to undergo the search without a warrant and
it was considered as valid.
Another exception is when the goods are concealed to avoid
the payment of taxes. So kaning mga warehouses known to
be hiding the smuggled goods can be searched without a
warrant. But think again. Kaning mga Chinese traders, they
jhave their stores on the ground floor of their houses and the
second floor kay ila nanang balay. (daghan dawn is carbon.
Edi wow). Can there be search without a warrant on the
suspicion that they are stacking smuggled goods? NO. you
cant you have to apply for a search warrant.
Another exception when good are prohibited by law. Contra
ban can be searched andseized without a warrant. But should
it be used as an evidence thats another story. They have to
be seized legally to be able to use it as evidence. But they can
be seized for being illegal which are prohibited by law.
Or when you do checking of bldgs, to check if they are
following the bldg code, that can be searched, even without a
search warrant.
Or when you do searching in an unsanitary restaurant, that
can be searched even without a warrant.
So those are all the exceptions of the warrantless searches
and are considered as VALID even without a warrant.
Now what if the search is illegal what would be the
consequence? Any evidence obtained, even it was established
the crime, established the truth, cannot be used a s evidence
against a person whose right has been violated.
Can you recover the things that were seized illegally? Ma
recover nimo ang shabu? Ang licensed firearm?
3RD PART
So this is with respect to a crime being committed, after
warrantless arrest, what happen next is that, the police will

investigate you. The investigation is what we call CUSTODIAL


INVESTIGATION. After the custodial investigation, an inquest
will be conducted by the FISCAL to determine if there will be a
PROBABLE CAUSE. The inquest will consider only the evidence
by the complainant such as the evidence that are submitted
by the police. There is no time where the accused or the
suspect to controvert the allegations because the period of
detention is expiring. So what is the period of detention
allowable by the law? When the offense is petty, it is only for
twelve hours. When it is only less grave it is only for eighteen
hours. When it is grave it is only for 36 hours. After the
investigation of the police and the suspect is brought to the
fiscal's office, and the period of detention had expired, the
fiscal cannot conduct an inquest. The fiscal will simply release
the accused while he continues to conduct the proper
preliminary investigation. So again, what may be conducted
only is the inquest. If the probable cause is established, the
fiscal files the case in court. And then the court will make its
own determination of probable cause because the constitution
requires that probable cause has to be determined personally
by a judge. Now here's a question, would the judge will going
to "___(?)" again the complainant, so the judge can examine if
there is a probable cause to issue again a warrant of arrest?
The answer is NO. All the judge will do is examine personally
the records of inquest of preliminary investigation. And if the
judge is convinced that there is a probable cause, then the
judge will issue the warrant of arrest. So that he can be placed
in the custody of law; so that he can be notified properly of
the charges against him.

So again Arrest is lawful if:

it is with warrant

It falls under the exceptions of Rule 113 in the Rules


of Court.
The three exceptions where the arrest is lawful, even if it is
made without a warrant are:
1)

in flagrante delicto

2)

hot pursuit

3)

escapee from jail

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

-The suspect is about to commit a crime in the presence of the


arresting officer. Right then and there, he can directly arrest
for practical reason that the application of warrant of arrest
takes time. take note that the arresting officer should witness
the commission of the crime.
-What if he didn't actually see the commission of the crime
but he heard that somebody scream and someone said that
the suspect holding a gun went to the upper floor of the
building, could he arrest that suspect? Answer is YES. While
he did not really see the shooting, but if it is within the
hearing distance that he came to know that a crime is
committed, in which case that is considered as a crime being
committed in his presence.
-Rebellion is a continuing offense. Say for example the
President was killed for the prupose of overthrowing the
government. Even if the police did not actually see the
suspect shooting, because of the nature of the offense charge
is continuing, it would be as if the suspect continuously
committing a crime in the presence of a police officer who is
going to arrest here. So that would be like he is committing a
crime in a presence of the arresting officer. Therefore, he can
be arrested even without a warrant of arrest.

driver of the Porche. Now because the people were rushing


towards the crime scene, the police arrived and did an
investigation. The police found out that it was the driver of the
motorcycle who shot the driver of the Porche. They checked
the plate number of the motorcycle and it was registered in
the name of a particular individual and then they went to the
place and found the suspect. He was arrested and charged.
Now he questioned the validity that the inquest was invalid
and the arrest was illegal and therefore the information and
the result of the inquest is invalid and the case must be
dismissed. The question is not correct because eventhough
the police was not present at the time when the shooting was
actually committed, the police has a personal knowledge of
the facts indicated that the motorcycle of the accused shot
the victim because they on the records of the motorcycle and
indicted the culprit.
-Another example: There was this case of a child, who
witnessed the killing of his parents and his sister after she was
raped. He was in a closet so he was not discovered by the
culprit. Early in the morning when the culprit was not there
anymore he came out from the closet and went outside from
the house. There was a search done in the house.The blooded
parents and sister were found out, there was also a knife that
was used. It was sent to the PNP laboratoty and it was
confirmed that this was the blood of the victim. Case was filed
for multiple murder and rape. Thereafter the evidence was
presented against the neighbor. This was objected to by the
defense saying that you cannot used that evidence against
him because there was no search warrant, is he correct? The
police counter-argued that it was not an invalid search and
seizure because it was incidental to the arrest. It is given that
the police was not present at the time the crime was
committed. Did the police have personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the neighbor commited the crime? Was the
testimony of the child sufficient to give the police the
probable cause or justify the arrest? Answer is No.. What
should have been done by the police? Since there is a
testimony of the child, knowledge is personal to him, go to the
crime scene and make an investigation. Make some evidence
and trace the culprit. With the testimony of the child
corroborated by evidence it can now be said that this person
might committed the crime in that case, that would justify
the warrantless arrest; then the arrest was lawful and the
subsequent search to that arrest is valid and the evidence will
be admissible. How about if there is no witness? Like the child
was not there to testify? It is too risky. Then in that case, he
can get away literally of the case of three murders and rape.
-So again what is emphasized from Hot Pursuit there has to be
"____(?)" of the commission of the crime to the actual arrest.
There is no interruption. The chain of the events that led to
arrest must not be interrupted because once there is a gap or
interruption then there has no justification for a hot pursuit.
What should be done is to apply a warrant of arrest and file a
case.
-Another example is when you go naked in the street and then
'nag-wala' ka or you are drunk and going wild in the street,
there can be an arrest without a warrant. Another is you are
asked for identification but you failed to produce, you can also
be arrested without a warrant. Or when you disturb a hearing
in a court because you are very noisy, you can also be
arrested without a warrant for contempt this is what we call
administrative arrest. Another is when you hold a disco in the
street without permit from the city government, you can also
be arrested without a warrant.
Now then, what will be your REMEDY if you are arrested
without a warrant? Like for example you go out from this Law
Building an a police approach and tell ypu come with us at the
police station. What should you ask? Ask for a WARRANT, if
there is no warrant do not go. What if a gun is pointed at you?
What is your next question? Ask why are you arrested and ask
what is the CHARGE. Now you can also ask to call your lawyer.
CALL YOUR LAWYER about your charge and your charge is not
yet filed in court.nwhat would the lawyer do? The lawyer have
TWO OPTIONS:
(1.) Petition for Bail

HOT PURSUIT

- The arresting officer was not present during the commision


of a crime he was not around. However there are substantial
facts indicating that the person to be arrested must have
committed the crime.
-Example: Here is this guy driving his Porche, he was driving
very fast and overtook a motorcycle. The driver of the
motorcycle who is a barrister waiting to pass the bar shot the

Why petition for bail when there is no case filed in the court?
Ans: As long as you are deprived of your physical liberty you
have the right to petition to the court to fix the bail. The court
will then act on your petition for your provisional liberty.
(2.) Petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In this petition, the court will determine the legality of the
petition. The court will then issues the order toproduce the
body of the suspect so that the court can determine the

legality of detention. If detention is legal, the court will return


you to the custody of the police. If illegal, the court will
immediately order your release. Be sure that the case is not
yet file. The moment the case is filed in court and warrant of
arrest is issued that would cure the illegality of the arrest and
justify your continued detention. So the petition for habeas
corpus becomes moot and academic.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE (this was asked in the bar exam) : You


should not allow yourself to be arraigned. Ayaw pa-arraign
when you think that the arrest was illegal. Basta warrantless
ha. This is the process as it was written, ikaw caught in the act
of committing a crime. Gidakop ka sa police. After the police
conducted their investigation, the police will bring you to the
fiscal. The fiscal will then conduct the inquest. After the
inquest the fiscal files to the court. Before arraignment, you
should ask the court that the information be set aside and
nullify. Why ask for a nullifcation that will led to the dismissal
of the case? Because you will note guys that when a
warrantless arrest is illegal, the inquest is also illegal. If the
proceedings are illegal then the information is not valid. Then
if the information is invalid thus no case. So what the court
will do is dismiss the case. You have to raise that before
arraignment, because of you allow yourself to be arraigned,
you gave considered to have waived your right to question
the validity of the arrest.
FEBRUARY 22, 2016

In this particular case of Nivarez, it was made to


appear that is was not limited only to her or to that individual
where this pictures were posted but also to friends. The
Supreme Court was saying that the moment you put there
friends, it cannot be in so far as the facebook is concerned,
the showing or posting of the pictures may not just be limited
to friends because your friends have friends who have access
to your account on the your wall. So they are not the only
ones who may see the pictures or whatever you have posted
in your account or in your wall but the friends of your friends
as well. The Supreme Court said, there is no expectation here
of privacy the moment you allow the public to see your
account or your wall or your pictures in the facebook unless
you limit the information only to yourself.
b.
Decisional privacy. The privacy in your making
decisions. So I tell you guys dont be complaisant with
facebook because in cases where they have pictures
downloaded from accounts of certain people.
So basically the bottom line, is there any expectation
of privacy? Because if there is and it is intruded into then
definitely there is violation of the privacy communication and
correspondence. By the way, this does not apply only to law
enforcers, it can even be applied against private individuals.
There was this one case involving a wife suspecting
the husband of having an affair. So the went to the clinic of
the husband (Zoraida vs CA), ransacked the clinic and found
the love letters that were all sent to the husband by the
mistress. Are those letters admissible in evidence?

Section 2 Privacy of communication and correspondence


Privacy of communication and correspondence as a result of
your privacy. Take note here the particular scope of protection
in so far as privacy is concerned is your communication and
correspondence. It could be in any manner when there is
reasonable expectation of privacy. So by communication we
mean like you have, not just letters, now they are not so
dependent on the sending of letters anymore because of the
advance technology. We now have like electronics
communication, we have email, communication through the
fax machine, text messages, in social media like twitter and
facebook. These are all covered by the protection.
So the most written decision regarding this matter
was the case involving the STC. Case of Nivarez vs STC. This
involves the facebook because apparently there were
students who had been reported to be acting in contrary to
what was expected to them as highschool students. I suppose
STC is rather very strict in so far as conduct and behavior of
the students. What happened here was that there were
pictures of the highschool students who were smoking,
drinking, and were wearing a clothes that are not appropriate
to say it is of student like them of a very conservative college.
This pictures were posted in the facebook then there friends
downloaded the pictures and one of those friends gave it to
the teacher and the latter reported it to the administrators.
The consequence of that, the administration came to know
what happened, so there were disciplined such that there
were not allowed to march for graduation, although they were
already allowed to attend the ball of the graduates. Since the
parents really expected them to graduate on March, so they
were disappointed and sued the STC. The parents wanted STC
to produce the pictures and have it set aside, excluded, so
theres no evidence that they can use against the students
then there is no justification for such kind of discipline. What
they were invoking as basis for that is that right to privacy of
the students in the facebook particularly. So basically, is the
right to privacy protected in so far as your communication vis
a vis the facebook?
Here in this particular case, there were discussions
by Justice Carpio on the different kinds on privacy that
expected or that are to be expected in the Facebook or any
social media kind of communication.
a.
There is what we call informational privacy. In so far
as your information relating to your personal circumstances,
you have control over them. Di ba in Facebook, in fact, if you
are having an account you have there the choices to make
known your information, personal view, pertaining to your
personal circumstances. Whether you are linking out to
yourself, you may not allow anyone to look into your
information, or to your friends only or to public. At that
instance, therefore, you have control over the information so
meaning if you had it only to yourself and this was hacked and
it was disclosed to the public, then there may be a violation of
your privacy.

No because the right of the husband here is violated.


But the same evidence may be used against her to prove that
she violated the right of her husband. Ramirez vs IAC.
Exception to that is when the public order has stately
require otherwise. Example: you are suspected NPA and they
have intelligence report that you are planning to bomb a
certain public place and the only way to confirm that is to get
the letter he sent to someone by intercepting communications
if not to bug the conversation in the telephone. Can that be
allowed?
Yes for reason of public safety or order. But how is
it determined if public safety require the intrusion to the
privacy of communication and correspondence? It is the
President of the Republic because this is an executive function
which function may be delegated by the president to the chief
of PNP.
And then there is the matter of law. The guaranties of
protection this privacy of communication and correspondence
is RA No. 4200.
Under RA 4200, you cannot record conversation in
the telephone from an extension line. Yes it is not protected.
You cannot record any private conversation between or
among individuals without their knowing. If you want to record
the conversation, you have to tell the person, if he does not
object fine, if he objects then you cannot record that
conversation and it is inadmissible. Whatever information you
will be getting from intruding into this privacy of
communication and correspondence is inadmissible as
evidence.
Case of Waterhouse Drug vs NLRC. This is a case of
an employee that was receiving commissions from a
competing company. IOW he was working for both companies
and they are competing companies. And a letter containing
the commission was sent to him to his office. The secretary,
as it is his function to open communications addressed to the
company, opened the letter and discovered that these were
check commissions that was sent to the employee from a
competing office. Because of that he was dismissed from
service. Now he objects saying that there is no basis for the
dismissal because that letter is inadmissible as it violated his
right to privacy of communication and correspondence. Is he
correct?
No because the letter was addressed to his name but
the address is that of the department. If he wanted to have it
private, so as not to be opened by the secretary in charge of
mails, he should have places there personal and confidential.
But he did not so it was for then the clerk to open the letter
because of the assumption as it was addressed to the office,
then it was an official mail. So the Supreme Court said this is
inadmissible evidence.
There was another case, this was the case of
Mastricampo, this was the case involving Trillianes and others

who were involved in the coup d eat. They were put to jail.
They were detained and they were sending letter outside of
the jail making their lawyers as courier. So the courier before
he wil leave the detention cell, he is asked to show the letters
to the guards and the guards will open the letters and read
them. Now what happened, Trillianes and others complained
then by saying that they are violating their privacy of
communication and correspondence. Are the correct? Is there
privacy of detention prisoners in the prison cell to the extent
that their personal letters cannot be opened?
SC said, first of all, if you are a detention prisoner,
either already convicted or still waiting for the termination of
the case, there is no expectation of privacy. IOW the letters
may be opened but if it is personal, the guards may not read
them but it will not stop the guards or the jail warden from
opening the letters and if they obtain information from it, they
are admissible as evidence because there is no expectation of
privacy in detention cell or prison cell.
Question (student): recording of conversation with a
corrupt official
Answer: it is inadmissible however corrupt he is. If it
violates his privacy. Thus the issue on the Hello, Garci.

(Storytelling: libel case because of a text message)


*in libel what is important is the publication of the derogatory
material.
(Storytelling: history of Watergate scandal of Pres. Nixon being
the head of the political party)
Human Security Act. It is an anti-terrorism act. Do you know
that while it is true that the privacy of communication and
correspondence is protected by law, the human security act
provided for an exception. That you may bug conversation
between judicially established rebels, auto-terrorist. It has to
be judicially established and not just based on speculation
that he is a rebel or a terrorist. There has to be a declaration
to the Court that they are terrorist group like Abu Sayaf for
example. The conversation that one may have with that group
can be recorded and this is not a violation of privacy of
communication and correspondence. Thats an exception.
Except when it is a communication between this terrorist and
his doctor. Thats a privileged communication. This terrorist
with his lawyer. That cannot be bugged. Or a journalist source,
for example, information with this terrorist that is not covered
by the exception. It is now protected under the privacy of
communication and correspondence.

(Storytelling of Hello Garci tape)


Ways to be held liable under RA 4200?
This is absolute and the only exception to that is
when it involves public order or public safety that may be
intruded into even i-bug pa na nimo basta involving public
safety or public order. The Garci tape cannot hardly be
considered falling under that exception. But how come that
there was no prosecution here for violating the privacy of
conversation?
a.

If you recorded private conversation;

b.
When you transcribe the conversation because it is
oral. IOW it is written. Gi-reduce into writing.
c.

When you publicize the recorded conversation.

Those are the 3 acts punishable under RA4200, all these


were done in that Hello, Garci? conversation and no
then Congress which are the one that conducted
investigation, have it translated, and even replay
conversation all over and over again. But the things is
come there were not held liable?

acts
less
the
the
how

Because nobody complained, not even the president whose


rights have been violated supposedly. This claim that shes
into that conversation. So who would complain, because only
Garci and who would believe him? But thats an example
where one can be held liable but nobody prosecuted because
in the first place people would not touch in, the prosecution
would not touch even just to initiate the filing against those
who violated rights against privacy and correspondence
between the President and Garci.
And then there is this recent controversy involving the
Mamasapano. Do you know that the conversation of the
President with those involved in that incident was recorded
and there was the threat that he will disclose it, however, he
was stopped because of the threats theyre going to
prosecute him for violation of RA 4200. So this is a different
political scenario. It was in the past under the same
circumstances but here there is threat that he will be charged
for violation of RA 4200 in the event he is going to disclose
that recorded conversation.
Question (student): is there intrusion of right to privacy if your
husband uploaded a photo with his mistress and set it into
private but prior to that, he gave his password to you so you
were able to access
Answer: first of all, not because your boyfriends and
girlfriends or husbands and wives, doesnt mean that
everything should be shared that one doesnt anymore enjoy
the privacy. Even the couple of sweethearts are protected
under the law. In this particular case, it may be debatable
because there was sharing of the password. So the wife may
have accessed to the communication with the consent, so
there cannot be a violation if there is a consent. What was
wrong here is when it was posted and publicized, the video.
That is not her picture but that of the husband and
considering the delicate nature of the material that should not
be posted. She can be liable for libel or anti-cyber crime law.

Take note that on the privacy of communication and


correspondence, any information that may be obtained, even
if it would establish the truth or the commission of the crime,
that will never be used as evidence against the person whose
right has been violated. But that person, the victim of the
intrusion of privacy, may use that as evidence against the
violator. Always be left(?) for that.
There is also the writ of habeas data. This is
protection of privacy to information pertaining to you. That is
what we call, informational privacy, and if they are untruthful
and misleading and intrude into your privacy affecting your
right to life, liberty, and security, you may ask the court to
issue the writ of habeas data. Once it is issued, the person
who has custody of the information or the data may be asked
by the court to appear and bring the information and destroy
it if indeed it intrudes the privacy to the petitioner.
Provisions under the Revise Penal Code, protecting
your privacy of communication and correspondence.
Read the case of Nivarez vs STC, 2014 case. There is
the discussion of the different types of privacy in so far as you
communication and correspondence. (1) Informational
privacy, (2) institutional(?) or locator or locational privacy, and
(3) decisional privacy.
Section 4 Freedom of expression
Freedom of expression more particularly in freedom
of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to a settled and
petition the government for reaches of movants(?).
What the law guaranties is this: Congress should not
pass a law that could impair or abridge this freedom of
expression consisting of those enumerated although there are
more of the freedom of expression which includes freedom of
religion and association. But under Section 4, this is more on a
freedom of speech and assembly.
Freedom of speech. You can say anything you want
under the sun without fear of being prosecuted by our laws
except as long as they are not libelous, seditious, and
pornographic or nude kind of speech.
On speeches, that includes the freedom to be
listened into. IOW this is not just saying verbally what you
have in mind, also the guaranty that what you have expressed
verbally will be listened into. So for example, when you deliver
a speech and you cannot be heard because of the
trompact(?). It was positioned close where you are delivering
your speech so you cant be heard. Is there a violation of your
freedom of speech? Yes because in effect you are practically
denied of expressing yourself when you cannot be heard.
Another thing, in speech it is not limited to oral
appearances. Is also includes when you, for example, walk to
and fro carrying a placard. The placard will have the
sentiments for whatever you have in your mind and they are
all written there. That forms part of your freedom of speech
because picketing is included in your freedom of speech.
If it is an ordinary strike, it needs to be established to
make it legitimate. That there is an employer-employee

relationship between the strikers and establishment against


these people are striking. What if you are not an employee of
that establishment? Can you carry around placard and walk to
and fro with them?
Yes because this forms part of your freedom of
speech in support, for example, of a relative or friend which is
holding a strike against the establishment or company. So you
need not be an employee, still, you are allowed to express
your support through that placard.
Question (student): students picketing in front of the
school in support of the employees.
Answer: no violation. The Constitution guaranties
that students have freedom of expression enjoyed as well
inside the campus. In one of the decisions of the SC where
USC lost the case, the former emphasizes just because you
are enrolled in the university it doesnt mean that you leave
your freedom of expression at the gates of the university. Here
the SC guaranties the student the continued exercise of the
freedom of expression. Particularly in this case was the
freedom od assembly that they can enjoy the freedom as long
as it is not tumultuous. Thats the guaranty in that case
involving USC.
Freedom of speech, you can say anything you want
to say for as long as it is not libelous, seditious, neither violent
nor pornographic.

Libelous, because you have the anti-cyber crime law.


Dou you know that even to check in support of the statement
that is derogatory , you can be held liable and the SC was
saying that, it is ridiculous because that will have a duly effect
on the freedom of expression. Now it was declared
unconstitutional so you may just continue liking in facebook.
There is no liability, the liability is only on the writer.
Question (student): icons used in pickets like the face
of PNoy likened to a pig. Is there a violation?
Answer: it may be violative and derogatory. Thats
the difference of private individual and a public figure because
the private individual, in libel case, is strictly observed. IOW
you can be held liable for putting the person in public
contempt or ridicule. That is if you are a private individual. But
our laws are rather lenient against public officials because of
the principle that a public office is a public trust. So which
means you shouldnt be (?) to criticisms that may be thrown
against you by media or any person by that matter because of
the concept that theyre always accountable to the public. If
that is the way in making you accountable then what can we
do? Bite the bullet as they would say id you cannot stand it
then leave your office because that is the way it is being in a
public office.

Sec. 4 Freedom of expression.

Note that because of freedom ofexpression even libel


laws have penalties. But the penalties have been lessen
where as advised by the SC ngano impose imprisonment for
libel if convicted, only a fine if possible.
(story telling: case of anabel rama)
FEBRUARY 27, 2916
Piracy of communication and Correspondence

Always determine if there is any violation, whether or


not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and
if there is intrusion of that privacy or if that
expectation is not met by the intrusion then there
will be a violation of that privacy, so if there is no
expectation
of
privacy,
these
privacy
of
communication and correspondence cannot be
employed.
Example:
o
Facebook, there is informational privacy the
owner of the account is given control of
what information should be disclose to the
public however if you allow people to see
you where you are or to see your
information regarding on a person is up to
you. Once you disclose that to the public or
your friends you lost that expectation of
privacy.
Through Letters.
o
Is there expectation of privacy in jail? No.
You share everything in jail. No cellphones in

jail. How can you even demand privacy


where you cant even use a phone?
o
Can you send letters outside of your prison
cell? Yes, why not.
o
Is there any privacy while you send that
letter? Under 7438, to certain extent there
is privacy but it is restricted or limited
because on the possibility that you might
escape. So they are allowed to check on
your letters.
o
Even if you have not been convicted, the
fact is that you are detained you dont enjoy
the same privacy with the people that are
outside.
Through Emails.
o
They asked for the constitutionality of that
provision in the anti-(inaudible) Crime law.
Because of no use to people its just adding
to the bulk of your mail unya if mo daghan
kay mo hinay imong net service. The
Supreme Court said, No you cant do that
because the owner of the emails that were
sent to you they also have the right to
advertise or promote their products.
Freedom of expression in this case prevails.
RA 4200 as regards to the coverage to protection.
Take note of the Human Security Act, this privacy
cannot be applied against private individuals.
Read the case of Waltrus (notsure) Drugs Corp. vs
NLRC. Where the letters were open by private
individuals and the SC sustained the admission of the
evidence that was obtained by intruding into the
privacy of communication of the person. SC first of all
there was no violation of privacy because the one
who opened was a private individual and it was part
of his job that is to open letters addressed to the
company. And second there was no showing that the
letter was personal or confidential and so there was
justification to open it. When it was discovered that
the guy was engaged also in employment with a
competing company he was dismissed from
employment of that company using his own letter
that was addressed to him. The SC said there was no
violation there of the privacy of communication and
correspondence. Take note, like any violation of a
privacy
of
a
person
like
the
letters
of
communications there is this rule of excluding them
as evidence being a fruit to a poisoned tree.

Basically when you say freedom of expression you


can say anything you want, express yourself in any
manner you want and convey to the public the
message or sentiments or emotions etc. youre free
to do that, in order to put more meaning on your
freedom of expression take note of your two
corollary rights: freedom from restraint or
censorship and the freedom from subsequent
liability. Meaning even before speaking you dont
have to go to the city government and ask
permission to speak. You are free to speak your mind
and express yourself.
If youre punished after by libel, obscene, and
sedition would that be a violation of your freedom of
expression? Not necessarily, although the law
guarantees that theres no punishment after
expressing yourself or conveying your message there
shouldnt be any fear that you will be punished of
what you have said. As long as it is not libelous, not
obscene neither seditious because these are not
protected by law.
Two kinds of speeches.
1. Core speech what is the subject matter?
This is more protected in they can only be
intrusion into these kind of speeches when
there is a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil to happen. No one ccan
intrude. Content base should there be any
regulation on the core speech? Only can be
done by the state when there is a clear and
present danger.
2. Commercial speech Subject matter to be
philosophical,
talks
about
philosophy,
relating to values, social, political. Pertains
to a advancing or promoting or advertising
items, goods or services for commercial
purposes. On the case where one billboard
of a liquor company states,nakatikim kana

10

ba ng 15 anyos and the one holding the


glass of liquor looks like a 15years old with
skimpy clothes but they were probably
referring to the 15years of age of the liquor.
Then the billboard was removed. If the
advertisements are fraudulent if not
misleading, then the state may then
intervene and regulate and there cannot be
a violation there of your freedom of
expression. What the state is protecting is
the minor children.

We have the freedom to express ourselves just take


note that that is not absolute there are limitations,
you can say anything you want to say under the sun,
oral adherences but do you know it is not limited to
oral adherences it includes also where doing an act
without saying a word but you are conveying a
message to the public. When you are using a placard
walking, stating you are against tuition fee increase.
Can you be prohibited from doing that? No, you cant
be stopped because that would be a violation of your
freedom of speech. Even if you are not an employee
of a company that there is an on going strike diba
importante for a strike to be legitimate tha strikers
must be employees but you are only a supporter, can
you hold a placard of an employee? Can you be
evicted because you are not an employee? No,
because that is part of your freedom of speech.

Included in your freedom of speech, is when you


deliver your speech you expect people to listen to
you, like you, do I expect for you to listen to me while
I discuss? Is there any right violated here? Yes, The
freedom of speech because that includes the right to
be listened to. Whats point of speaking when nobody
is listening.
Unprotected speeches.

Libel

These are Libelous, obscene and seditious.

Libel is not just limited to speaking to each other or


writing derogatory statements in the papers, it is now
in tweeter, facebook etc. where you say a derogatory
statement., you can be held liable. But do you know
the original Cybercrime law, (inaudible) vs DOG
Secretary even just simply checking or concurring to
the statements written in the wall. Facebook and
then you just check that means you agree and
support even if derogatory. The SC said that is not
right, that would have a ching effect on the freedom
of expression particularly it would be over breathe
bisag proper pana will be included even though the
speeches that are protected will be subject to
punishment. Now it is no longer part of liability. Now
check and check there is no liability anymore.
When you impute a crime or a defect by real or
imaginary if the purpose is to place the person under
public contempt, ridicule or embarrassment you can
be held criminally liable for libel.
The matter is publication; you published that
derogatory statement, in this case through facebook.
Private individual
o
the state is very strict. If you destroy the
good reputation of that private individual
you can be held liable for libel and you
cannot invoke your freedom of speech as an
excuse.
o
Punishment:
lenient.
Not
to
impose
imprisonment, fine lang. Prision correccional
maximum, minimum of 6months then
6years. If
Government official
o
Acts criticizing the public officials the courts
are rather lenient because of the office that
the government official is holding, he is a
public trust and to make him always
accountable he can be the subject of
comments, criticism by the media or any
individual on that matter. So they are saying
in the case of US vs Bostos(?) the public
officials should not be on your skin to
criticism because after all if there is no truth
to it, you shouldnt be affected by it. And if it
is true that youre doing shenanigans why
should you be affected when you are doing
it. Take note: As long as comments are fair
and honest no liability. And as a defense,
good faith is a defense on the part of the
person criticizing.

Obscenity

This however, does not apply to the


Judiciary. Criticize the court and you will be
sited for contempt, and you could go to jail.
Why? Because the subject of interest is the
administration of justice. If you criticize the
judiciary that would amount to people losing
trust and confidence on the judiciary, what
would happen? That would be dangerous
because people would no longer go to
courts for relief. Instead they would just kill
each other. Take the law into their hands, an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

How do you determine if its obscene or not? Always


remember that only the court can decide that. Not
MTRCB even, MTRCB it is only to supervise the
programs in TV or check on supervise, classify
movies and films but they cannot determine whether
a material is pornographic or not. Case in point they
cannot stop a showing of a pornographic films, only
the court can stop it. What the MTRCB will do is apply
for injunction to stop the showing. Because of the
guaranty of high restraint or censorship. Now if there
is indeed some kind of classification of MTRCB where
certain audiences may not be allowed to watch the
film guys that is justified by its power because the
government was saying unlike any other kind of
expression the most effective are movies and films
because even without understanding the language
you would understand what the message that the
film is trying to convey and therefore to protect the
minds of the young people from being corrupted,
thats why the MTRCB are there.
How do consider a material as obscene? It is for the
court to determine and not for anyone.
Only for the purpose of arousing a man sexually that
when there is no tracking of any artistic value, no
philosophical value, no social value, no political
value, no cultural value, none of those values then it
is pornographic. But that is for the court to decide.
o
Example:
If you see a naked/half
naked, do you feel arouse by looking at a
native woman half naked? Like habag, do
you feel arouse? No, because thats cultural.
o
Do you feel aroused by looking at the UP
oblation statue? No, because it has
philosophical value. Philosophically it is a
naked truth that youre naked in coming to
this university, nothing to hide, there is
freedom here as far as knowledge, the
pursuit for the truth, it is then artistic.
o
Model of Anatomy? Reproductive organ
models? No, because theres a scientific
value.

Seditious

When you instigate people to rise in arms in order to


go against the established government. This is what
the guy did, he called all his neighbors to get their
bolo and to chop all this corrupt officials. He was
charged with sedition, he invoked the freedom of
speech. Is that valid? No, because afterall sedition
are not protected by law.

Some principles in regulating the freedom of


speech freedom of expression and freedom
of assembly.
o
o

content-based regulation
consent neutral regulation

content-based regulation
- when the core of the speech is
subject to regulation the state can
do that when there is a clear and
present danger of substantive evil
that may be produced based on the
speech the status of the nation to
stop or prevent it.
11

content neutral regulation


- this is merely regulating the
manner, time and place of the
delivery of the speech for exercise
the freedom of expression. the
state will not stop you actually, in
expressing yourself but there will
be a limit on Manner, on time and
place where you are going to
deliver your speech.
example.
- You want to make a political speech
at Juan Luna Cornet, Colon street,
an hour that is so busy, regulated
and not allowed to use the street.
- Is there any violations of freedom
of speech or freedom of assembly?
- SC, no violation because youre
never prohibited from exercising
your freedom, only that there has
to be a regulation on place because
that is very busy street and the
time, for the safety of the public
including your safety.
What would be the test when do we interfere
and regulate the time, manner and place of
your exercise of your freedom of speech and
freedom of expression
- Only reasonable interest that the
state has the obligation,
- what is the interest here?
- Traffic congestion, if allowed as
against
your
freedom
of
expression, protecting the safety of
public including your safety for
regulating the time, manner, and
place of that exercise of your
freedom.
Diocese of Bacolod Vs COMELEC
-

This is the height of RH law


controversy, the height of RH law
controversy, they starting posted in
church, outside the wall of Church,
TEAM PATAY (PRO RH law) TEAM
BUHAY (anti RH law).
when the
COMELEC ordered the Diocese of
the Bacolod to remove it. what
rights have been violated, is the
freedom of religion or freedom of
expression?
SC said, it has nothing to do with
the freedom of religion, because
you can see Catholic dogma being
posted, neither it was supporting

or going against the election of


senators which may have run for
the reelection. because it was just
simply and expressing in Latin the
Senators no, that we know who
voted and against. It is exercise of
freedom of expression.
Q: Did the COMELEC violate that freedom of
expression of the Diocese of Bacolod?
A: indeed, violation of the freedom of
expression,
in
other
words,
the
COMELEC cannot order, the removal.
- first all of the church is a private
property,
- second of
all, it
was neither libelous,
obscene,
nor seditious,
because all they did was to
enumerate the list of the names of
the Senators who may have been
supporting or against the RH law.
- Since, it was violation of freedom of
expression, then it was not proper
to the COMELEC to said that to the
Diocese of Bacolod.
FREEDOM OF PRESS
-

the covers all forms of media of


mass media communication, or
modes
of
mass
media
communication,
maybe
radio,
broadcast on TV, print., films and
movies are included.
now it includes the freedom of prior
restraint or censorship well as the
freedom from subsequent liability.

censorship or prior restraint


- this MTRCB, its role is only to
supervise programs of TV, cannot
discipline the other performers in
the TV
SORIANO VS LAGUARDIA
- SORIANO was the host of ang
dating daan, one time he was
criticizing the Iglesia ni Cristo,
cursing them, that even an
ordinary
5yr
old
child
can
understand what he was saying. He
was suspended by MTRCB and the
program.
- Soriano went up to Supreme Court,
questioning whether it is right of
MTRCB to suspend him or discipline
him.
12

SC, say NO because MTRCB does


not have that power, they are only
to supervise. No control over the
actor.
If suspending the program, was it
right for them, does it not violate
the freedom of press including the
prior restraints censorship.
SC said, NO, there was no violation
because
apparently,
Obscene,
Libelous
materials
are
not
protected by law.
He was sanctioned.

Classification of TV broadcast
-SPG
-PARENTAL GUIDANCE
Classification in movies and film
- restricted AUDIENCE
- general patronage
-

In America there are certain movie


theater that
only
show adult
movies, here in the Philippines, we
don't have that, its a selfregulation as far as the movie
theaters are concern. SN has a
matter of policy, they don't show,
restricted
audience, mostly, are
general patronage, it is a selfregulation, its not the MTRCB that
imposed such limitations.

Q: why is it important for the producer that


their film will be classified as a general
patronage?
A: because that mean all can watch it;
it means more income. Once it is
classified for adult or restricted
audience, what will happen is less
audience will watch, and income
would be limited
Why restricted to audience?
- there
are
portions that are
sexually explicit.
Is it for, MTRCB to remove it?
- certainly not, because there is no
prior restraint or censorship. what
will
the
producer
do
selfregulation, removing the restricted
to audience scene? It was not
MTRCB who had it removed it was
the producer.

What
if
there
are
restricted
to audience show in general patronage, what
will be MTRCB do because of the objection?
- - MTRCB will go to the court and
ask for injunction to stop the
showing to the general patronage,
it should have only restricted
audience because of freedom of
prior restraint or censorship.

What
are
the
justification
for
this
justification?
- Supreme
Court,
we
must
understand that movies and films,
are effective medium in conveying
message
even
without
understanding English, we already
understand what the film is trying
to convey by their actions.
COROLLARY TO THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
PRESS
- included
in
the
right aside
from prior restraint or censorship
and freedom from subsequent
liability
1. Right of information of
matters of public concernthey are given access to
information because what
material they would get if
they don't have the access.
2. Freedom
of
circulationbecause what's the point of
gathering data, when they
can't even have published it
or circulate it that is also
guaranteed in the freedom
of press.
One time the COMELEC prohibited the
publication of survey results including exit
polls results.
-

Ex. Who is the leading presidential


candidate? Binay, Poe, Duterte,
Mar. Now, if you are to believe the
survey, you don't go for loser you
go to winners regardless of who the
person is. According to COMELEC
lisod kaayo because people who
are not interested in politics, they'll
just vote or go for someone who
has been in top of the survey, they
didn't even go to their program,
qualifications, whether he is honest
or good feather. "why vote for
someone who doesn't even win the
13

election. The COMELEC doesn't


want that. Ideally we're supposed
to
vote
the
most
qualified
candidate for president. COMELEC
(inaudible) to the survey results
similarly in exit polls.
-

ABS-CBN are brainwashing the


people in order to support those
candidates
that
they
are
supporting. Mao nang most of
those who won like "Castro" an
ABS-CBN
candidate
"ABS-CBN
party",
although
not
actively
participating, in effect there's
endorsing
the
candidate
for
election, that's why COMELEC stop
it.
Exit polls! Survey napod! Tapos na
ang election naa nay survey, ABS
published the winner una pa
compare sa COMELEC. Maybe
COMELEC
is
compelled
and
pressured into letting the person
win apparently in the survey nga
midaog na xa. COMELEC said that's
not fair on the possibility of these
survey results influencing the
voters, so he prohibited. SC
declared unconstitutional for being
violative of freedom of expression.
SC, leave it to people to decide,
they're educated, ikaw COMELEC
instead, you should be more
concerned
on how you will
strengthen your mechanism so that
these people would vote according
to their conscience and not being
influenced by survey results.

As between protecting fairness in election


as against the freedom of expression, SC
freedom expression prevails

TV-120 MINUTE (TOTAL)


AGGREGATE-(180 MINUTE TOTAL)
-

All candidates went to ABS


-------- GMA thats not right
depriving their income -----GMA
went to SC questioning the
limitation of AIRTIME
SC, says that`s the violation of
freedom of expression of that
candidate communicating to the
public informing then who they,
what are their platform are
program,
what
are
the
philosopher in life, 120 minutes
would not be enough.

NO MORE LIMIT THIS


TIME that would violate
freedom of expression.
Brillante said, If you were
spending more than what is
allowed by law you will be
disqualified
Ejercito was disqualified
due to over spending in
publication.

How much in the limit of spending President-P10/voters - ani patay kang bata ka
! VOTE BUYING
-

COMELEC cannot prohibit the postings


in vehicles because all vehicles are
private property taking it n/ out just
compensation is a violation of his
right, sight he her of freedom of
expression.

AIR TIME RADYO/TV


- Do you know there is limit of
airtime/tv.

Nagpahimolos ug ayo before


election period, kay wala naman
premature campaign, during
election period there`s a limit.
According to SC to have pain
election kailangan limitado ang
inyong exposure, every time
you have an interview magsulti
sa COMELEC.

COMELEC passed a resolution


saying -Kinahanglan kamong
mga
radio
station
dapat
mohatag ug free airtime sa
tamang kandidato
Not applicable to print.
Why pay in print while free in
radio -COMELEC said in order to
level
the
election
some,
candidate can`t afford in print,
in order to disseminate who are
the candidate, -- so they are
compelled,
private
radio
broadcasting companies.
print can`t reach the hinterland.
RADIO COVERED WIDE SPREAD.
SC,
for
valid
classification, no violation
of
equal
protection
14

clause, because its their


obligation to let the
people know. Just like in
freedom
of
speech,
libelous, obscene and
sedition materials are not
protected.

*If you`re going to use state campus


or state university no need of permit
*When in private no need of permit.
-Because it guarantees freedom from
subsequent liabilities

if any injuries or death happens during


the rally are the organizer liable for it?

Pacquioas case! Was Taken out of context.


FREEDOM OFASSEMBLY
- You can meet with friends and
discuss a matters in any public
place, nobody can stop, you can
go into rally demonstration or
assembly in public. just like in
freedom
of
expression
it
includes prior restraints and
freedom
from
subsequent
liability. NO park NO rally. Is that
a violation to your freedom of
assembly REYES VS BAGATSING
in applying batasang pambansa
880.
REYES VS BAGATSING
- the denial of a permit to hold a public
rally was invalid as there was no
showing of the probability of a clear
and present danger of an evil that
might arise as a result of the meeting.
The burden of proving such eventually
rests on the Mayor.
-

The requirements of the bids to use a


public place to hold a rally but to use a
public place maybe by the state under
content neutral regulation. Where the
state merely regulation the time
manner and place of the conduct of
rally why? Because what if the public
place will be use also by another
group there will be trouble, that`s
precisely the requirements of (nay
miubo hahahhah) because at all SC
said you can always have a rally but
the risk of being in trouble.
Permit in not required in freedom park
(There should have been a declaration
that the park in a freedom park) that is
required by the SC.
o

in the case of BAYAN VS ERMITA


*Every LGU must declare a
freedom park; where they can
converge or discuss matters of
public concern without need of
a permit.

NO, Because of the freedom


from subsequent liabilities Who
shall be held liable for it ? the
one who are responsible for the
death and injuries.

Tests of valid governmental interference


(criteria in determining the liability
of the individual for ideas expressed by him):
-

Clear and present


danger rule
Dangerous tendency
doctrine
Balance of interest
test

CLEAR DANGERO
AND
US
PRESENT TENDENC
DANGER Y RULE
RULE
liberty is
preferred

BALANCE OF
INTEREST RULE

Authority is the issue is resolved in


preferred
the light of the peculiar
circumstances obtaining
in each particular case

GERMAN VS BARANGAN
-

SC found that petitioners were not


sincere in their profession of religious
liberty and were using it merely to
express their opposition to the
government.
Because there was clear and present
danger, if allowed, they will endanger
the residences of Malacanang place.
PROHIBITION SUSTAINS

Teacher holding rallies against malacanang,


they want to raise their salary, but instead
they were dismissed from the service and
said that`s unfair, were just asserting our
constitutional rights to assembly. SC said wa
man mo gidismiss because of exercising
freedom of assembly gidismiss mo kay wala
15

mo ni attend ug clases. You don`t even apply


leave SC emphasize event assuming if you
have that right that is not essential to the
right of association.

In the case of the students of San Carlos


protested against the increase of tuition fees
and rallied inside the campus, chanting
everywhere. By next semester all leaders
were not admitted! They went all the way to
SC, this is one case that San Carlos napildi.
SC said because their students now have
already left the right at the gate and
secondly nag reklamoug saba kaayo sa
tanan
and
their
making
derogatory
statements that are expected. they can say
whatever they want to say, whatever they
say for as long as not troublous. But when it
became violent that is a different story.
Theres limit to rally and assembly.
-

Petitioning
the
government request of
grievanceyou can complain as
many complains you file.
Constitution guarantees
because
some
government official are
not fixed scheme in
community corruption
no liability complaining

Included in the protection where you can


question the validity of a law that infringes
into your freedom of expression grounds that
can be use
-

VOID FOR VAGUENESS- violate


due process
OVERBREATH
-violate
due
process even the protected
- so comprehensive
it covers right that
govern
the
prohibition

You can always challenge on the face the


constitutionality a law that infringes your
freedom of speech

(2) Free exercise of religious profession


and worship
1. Non-establishment Clause

reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on


separation of church and State

other provisions which support this:


Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious sect or
denomination cannot be registered as
a political party], Sec 5(2), Art. VI [no
sectoral representative from the
religious sector], and Sec 29 (2), Art.
VI [prohibition against the use of
public money or property for the
benefit of any religion, or of any priest,
minister or ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3),
Art. VI [exemption from taxation of
properties
actually,
directly
and
exclusively
used
for
religious
purposes, Sec 4(2), Art XIV [citizenship
requirement
of
ownership
of
educational institutions except those
owned by religious groups], Sec 29(2),
Art VI [appropriation allowed where
the minister is employed in the armed
forces,
penal
institution
or
government-owned
orphanage
or
leprosarium]

Scope: The State


(a) cannot set up a church;
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one
religion, all religions or prefer one over
another;
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or
remain away from church against his
will; nor
(d) force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III
of the Constitution

the

Non establishment of religion.


The state has no religion; therefore,
the estate must not be favoring or
discriminating the any religion.
The state must be neutral, it has no
religion, the state must not have
imposed any religion upon it.
Prohibition against any religious sector
to be accredited in the party-listthats
prohibited
under
our
constitution. This will violate the nonestablishment clause.

(1) Non-establishment clause


16

Having
a
religious
sector
representative of sangunian , thats
prohibited
Any use of public funds for the support
of any religious, church, priest is
prohibited.

LADLAD PARTYLIST VS COMELEC


-

Comelec refused to recognize


Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an
organization composed of men
and
women
who
identify
themselves as lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, or trans-gendered
individuals (LGBTs),as a party
list based on moral grounds. In
the elevation of the case to the
Supreme
Court,
Comelec
alleged that petitioner made
misrepresentation
in
their
application.
Comelecs citation of the Bible
and the Koran in denying
petitioners application was a
violation
of
the
nonestablishment clause laid down
in Article 3 section 5 of the
Constitution. The proscription
by law relative to acts against
morality must be for a secular
purpose (that is, the conduct
prohibited or sought to be
repressed is detrimental or
dangerous to those conditions
upon
which
depend
the
existence and progress of
human society"), rather than
out of religious conformity. The
Comelec failed to substantiate
their allegation that allowing
registration to Ladlad would be
detrimental to society.
The LGBT community is not
exempted from the exercise of
its constitutionally vested rights
on the basis of their sexual
orientation. Laws of general
application should apply with
equal force to LGBTs, and they
deserve to participate in the
party-list system on the same
basis as other marginalized and
under-represented
sectors.
Discrimination based on sexual
orientation is not tolerated
---not by our own laws nor by

any international laws to which


we adhere.
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
Non-establishment Clause
Take note of the provisions of the Constitution where the nonestablishment of religion have been reinforced. There are 3
provisions and 4 exceptions to the Separation of the Church
and the state where religion has been accommodated.
Some of the cases you must take note is the 1. Ebralinag v
Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu and 2. Imbong v
Ochoa
In the case of LGBT v Comelec, there was a ruling of the SC
where the SC reminded the Comelec that they are not
supposed to use religion for the accreditation of a political
party. An organization be it regional or national because the
religion has no place in governance.
You remember the case of the RH law and this was being
questioned by the Catholic Church as to its constitutionality.
What was the decision of the SC regarding the matter? While
the state dispense political guise that is neutral, the state
supposed to be is not to determine whether an act is right or
wrong based on morality or based on morals or the morality in
accordance with the dictions of a particular group? They just
follow what they think best for the state. So therefore the
religion must not dictate the state what laws should be
enacted and what that is good for the people because
ultimately there is the subdivision of the church and the state.
Basically it was a warning for the Church that please do not
interfere in our affairs. While it is respected, they should not
impose their beliefs or convictions on the state.
Do not forget the case of Lemon v Kurtzman where you have
the guidelines as to the understanding whether or not there is
a violation of the non-establishment of religion:
1.
2.
3.

The purpose must purely and primarily be legislative;


it is for a secular purpose
The action of the state neither advances nor inhibits
religion
It does not foster an excessive entanglement of
religion

If this is complied with, then even if religion is prohibited from


the action, there is no violation of the non-establishment
clause
Freedom of Religion
2 aspects: (1) Right to believe, (2) Right to exercise ones
belief
(1) Right to believe
In so far as the right to the right to believe, that is absolute for
as long as it would remain in the state of the mind. But the
moment the belief of the person, he will execute it and it is
contrary to law public morals, public policy, public order then
the state may now come in and it may now regulate or restrict
the exercise of the freedom.
Tests on the justification of the state for the intrusion of
freedom of religion: clear and present and danger rule or
compelling
state
interest
or
benevolent
neutrality
accommodation
Ebralinag v Superintendent pupils of members of the
jehovahs witnesses were expelled because they did not
salute before the PH flag.
What was the basis of the Superintendent in the
expulsion of the pupils? Followed the ruling of Verona v Sec of
the Educaton wherein the SC said: The flag does not have any
appearance of religious being, no religious significance. It is
learning how to love the country, loyal to the country, to
respect the flag. Basically that is the reason for the
requirement of the saluting of the flag, it does not have to do
with religion. Thus precisely the pupils were compelled
whenever they refuse and they were expelled from the school.
HOWEVER, in this case, the SC reversed the ruling in Verona
case. Who would be in the position to know whether or not a
law violates the freedom of religion? Is it not the religion itself
is in the best position to determine that? Now then, the
Supreme Court was saying that there is no clear and present

17

danger of any substantive evil to happen if this pupils are


allowed not to salute the Philippine flag because after all if the
purpose is to instill the values of patriotism and loyalty to the
country, those values can always be learned.

NO. It does not apply to private entities. This


only applies on the government.
How about religious icons in government office?

Imbong vs. Ochoa


On the basis of Conscientious objectors test, if one is
of the sincere belief that to do the act required of him by the
government would violate his freedom of religion, then it
should be respected for that belief. In RH law, the doctors are
required especially those who are working in the government
to introduce the use of contraceptive. What if it is against your
religion like Catholics, they are really devout on their faith that
the use of contraceptive would be contrary to ones belief. As
far as Catholics are concerned, they only allow family planning
by natural ways. That law went further, if they refuse they can
be sanctioned criminally. In effect, because of their religion,
they will be punished. The SC said that this would be a
violation of the freedom of religion.
The Conscientious objectors test was also used on
the issue of refusing rendering military service. Such as in the
case where members of Jehovahs witness refuse to render
military service during the Korea war where the US was
involved. They were put to jail. The SC said that as long as
their belief and they are consistent with their belief and not
just the Korea war but all kinds of war that the religion is
against with, then it should be respected.

As long as it is not the government that


required it, it is more of a personal choice of an
employee, it cannot be a violation.
What if SC prohibits the putting up of religious icons
in public edifices?
NO. because it is only on public buildings.
How about the issue on INC rally against the DOJ?
Yes. DOJ can inquire on the issue because
they are not dealing about the issue inside the INC
but the issue on illegal detention.
General rule: if it is about the dealings
inside the church, the state cannot interfere.
Exception: when it goes outside where they
now violate the laws then the state may come in.
MARCH 5, 2016
Section 6. Liberty of abode and right to travel

There should not be a sanction when on refuses on


account of his religious belief.
Estrada vs. Escritor

Liberty of abode

The woman (stenographer) had a quarrel with a


judge over an executive The woman slapped the Judge, then
somebody takes the fall for the judge cos he knew something
about the stenographer. It was found out that the
stenographer is living with another man when she herself is
also married. 20 years of living as husband and wife already
but they were married to their respective spouses. So a case
was filed against her for immorality. At first she was dismissed
from service, but the SC reversed it and said that it is the
practice of Jehovahs witness that when the parties cannot get
married because of legal impediment, they have another way
of legalizing kung bag a recognizing the common law union.
They only need to make a pledge of love and loyalty and
fidelity before the members of the church and that is
acceptable. And they say that pledge is valid until they free of
the legal impediment until they can legally marry. SC said that
there is no compelling state interest that is involved here. It is
not their fault that they were separated from their respective
spouses. And under the benevolent neutrality accommodation
one may be allowed to exercise his belief as long as there is
no compelling state interest. If it is not immoral to them, who
are we to judge them. Besides they are also accountable to a
higher authority, higher than the state.

- right to choose where you want to live or reside with the


corresponding right to change it within the limits prescribed
by law.

Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA


The Iglesia ni Cristo has a program that discusses the
tenets and dogma of their religion vis a vis the Catholic
religion. The MTRCB classified the program as Adult or X. The
SC declared the ruling of MTRCB to be exercised with grave
abuse of discretion. MTRCB should not be intruding into the
freedom of religion of Iglesia ni Kristo cos after all there is no
clear and present danger that by allowing the INC to criticize
the other religion would result to war.

Islamic Dawah Council vs. Executive Secretary


There was an executive order transferring the
classification of Muslim food as HALAL to the office of the
Muslim Affairs. The elders of the Muslims objected to it saying
that the government has no business classifying the food
since such is based on the Koran. The SC said that there is no
clear and present danger of substantive evil that if this
discretion is given to the Muslim themselves there is no
substantive evil to happen that the state has the obligation to
prevent.

No religious test is required in order for one to


exercise his civil or political right

LIMITATION: Lawful order of the court that you must stay in


one place only.

For example: you are convicted of a crime by a final judgment


then you have to stay in jail to serve the sentence. You cannot
demand to the jail warden to realese you because you have
the right to choose where you want to live.

Jurisprudence:

Villavicencio v. Lukban, the deportation of some 170


women of ill repute to Davao on orders of the Mayor of
Manila was held unlawful.

In Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil 851, it was held that a


maid has the right to transfer to another residence even if
she had not yet paid the amount advanced for her
transportation from the province by an employment
agency which was then effectively detaining her because
of the moral duress exerted on her.

Queries:

1. Can a military commander, who knows that you can be


caught during a war between the military and the rebel, to
compel you to evacuate to the evacuation center? NO. Only a
lawful order can limit your right to choose where you want to
reside. You can file a case so as to compel one to change
residence.

What if it is the USC requires that one should be a


catholic before admission to the school?

18

2. Can the mayor order those who are living near the creek to
change residence because of the danger that if there are
typhoons the creek will overflow? NO. But the mayor can file
a case against them for ejectment to transfer them to other
relocation site. HOWEVER, AS AN ALTERNATIVE ANSWER, the
right of abode can be regulated if there is a danger to public
welfare, thus the mayor may order the transfer and it is
justified because such the mayor is exercising police power.

Right to travel
-you can travel all you want anywhere in the country and
abroad as long as you have money and visa.

LIMITATION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW:

1. National security
2. Public safety
3. Public health

There is no mention of lawful order of court. BUT the court


can issue a HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER to stop you from
going out of the country. The purpose of which is simply not to
render or administration of justice inutil(?). Because it will be
useless of having a case against someone who cannot be
prosecuted because he already left the country and now
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court which may issue
the warrant of arrest. So even before the person can go
abroad, as long as he is facing criminal charges, he can be
barred from going out of the country by court issuing a hold
departure order.

ONLY THE CORT CAN EFFECTIVELY BAR SOMEONE FROM


TRAVELING ABROAD and not the DOJ of its watch list order.
They can only probably delay your departurebut certainly they
cannot bar you from going abroad.

The constitution is very clear that you can only by barred by a


court order especially if you're out on bail. If you are on bail
you are expected or required to appear in court if the court
orders you to do so, otherwise your bail bond will be cancelled
and eventually a warrant of arrest will be issued against you.
Thus, if you go abroad, you inform the court if you're out on
provisional liberty under bail bond because the the right to
travel can be regulated by the court as subject subject to
limitations as may be ordered by the court.

even without court order, the appropriate executive


officers or administrative authorities are not armed with
arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose
limits only on the basis of national security, public
safety or public health and as may be provided by
law, a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973
text, xxx Holding an accused in a criminal case within
the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from
the Philippines must be considered a valid restriction on
his right to travel, so that he may be dealt with in
accordance with law.

In Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SOFIA 633,


the Court further clarified the foregoing principles, saying:
[i] The hold-departure order is but an exercise of the
respondent courts inherent power to preserve and
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case
and over the person of the accused; [ii] By posting bail,
the accused holds herself amenable at all times to the
orders and processes of the court, thus, she may be
legally prohibited from leaving the country during the
pendency of the case; and [iii] Parties with pending
cases should apply for permission to leave the country
from the very same courts which, in the first instance,
are in the best position to pass upon such applications and
to impose the appropriate conditions therefor, since they
are conversant with the facts of the cases and the
ramifications or implications thereof.

In Imelda Romualdez Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.


No. 115132, August 9, 1995, the Court upheld the
denial by the Sandiganbayan of the request to travel
abroad filed by Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, inasmuch
as she had already been convicted. The persons right to
travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice.
Whether the accused should be permitted to leave the
country for humanitarian reasons is a matter addressed
to the courts discretion.

NOT ONLY THE COURT can limit the right to travel,


ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES can also regulate such and
the grounds will be:

1. National security
2. Public safety
3. Public health

Juris prudence:
Jurisprudence:

A lawful order of the court is also a valid


restriction on the right to travel.

In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149, the


Court held that the trial court may validly refuse to grant
the accused permission to travel abroad, even if the
accused is out on bail.

Salonga vs. hermosa For reasons of National security was


the excuse of the government in barring salonga from going
abroad although the SC said that in this case the government
has abuse its authority and SC castigated the gov. Saying
that the gov. Should not impressed upon the people that right
to travel can be subjected anytime to inconvenience because
the right to travel in constitutionally protected

National security is invoked in Marcos vs. Manglapus. The


Marcos family wanted to come back to the country however
they were barred to enter to the country for the reason that
there are still threats to national security.

In Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 760, the


Court said that Art. Ill, Sec. 6, should be interpreted to
mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired

19

Public safety.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon.


Relating to employment of house helpers or OFWs especially
as domestic helpers following the Flor Contemplasion case,
where she was executed to death for committing a crime
because she was abuse. Because of the many cases of abuses
reported, physical or sexual, the gov. Barred the employment
of domestic helpers abroad. It was questioned as to its
constitutionality. One of the grounds was it was a violation to
right to travel. SC ruled that it is justified because the reason
for prohibition is simply to protect the safety of our domestic
helpers or the OFWs.

Public health.

The own regulating is the department of health or board of


quarantine. If one is suffering from contiguous and incurable
disease you are prohibited from roaming around or if there is
virus like ebola, AHN1 and if it was prevalent at the time in
NIGERIA. So there a was a time where filipinos were not
allowed to enter in the country for the danger that they may
be carrying the virus.

Case of arroyo. She wanted to go abroad but she was barred


by the DOJ because of a pending cases filed against her and
so she was placed on the watch list notwithstanding that the
SC issued a temporary restraining order restraining DOJ from
barring arroyo to go abroad. But DOJ did not heed to the order
of the SC, because of the pendency of cases against here.
Though the reason was not enumerated in the limitation to
right to travel thus there was no reason to bar her from going
abroad UNTIL cases have been filed against her in the court
and since these were non-bailable NOW she cannot go
abroad. Her right to travel was bar because of the hold
departure order of the court. So If she were not facing
litigation and she was barred to go abroad then it would
violate her right to travel.

Returning to the country.

For example you got the chance to go abroad, because of piso


fare then you go to hong kong. You stayed for 3days 2 nights.
When you back to philippines you were not allowed to enter.
Can you invoke your right to travel and abode? NO. because it
is not included in your liberty of abode. There is no provision
in the constitution that guarantees the right to return to
country. ALTHOUGH it was not expressly provided by the
constitution, INTERNATIONAL LAWS guarantees you the
right to return to your country of origin as provide by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,you have the
Covenant of the Civil and Political rights. These two
generally accepted principles of international law guarantees
that if you go abroad you can return to your country. And
since they are generally accepted principles of international
law, they are automatically adopted as part of the law of the
land under the incorporation clause and thus it will be applied
as one of the national laws.

Sec. 7 right to information on matters of public


concern and the right to access these information
through documents and papers related to official acts,
decisions, transactions including government research
data.

Right to information is a political right and can only be


enjoyed by the citizens of the country. This is absolute in the
sense that when an information is declared a matter of public
concern, the custodian of information has no discretion to
allow you or not to have that information or to access such or
to disclose it. It becomes ministerial on the part of the
government to disclose the info for as long as the info is
considered as a matter of public concern.

HOWEVER the access of information at a particular time or


place is not absolute. It is subject to limitations as may be
provided by law.

For example you want a copy of the decision of the court. You
cannot demand to the clerk of court to give you the decision.
It may be a public record and if you want to get hold of the
copy you can only access it during office hours at that court
branch and pay the necessary fees for its preservation and
purposes of regulation.

How to determine if the matter is of public concern?

NO LAW YET. Because until now the information bill is still


pending in congress. So as of the moment the SC is the one
who determines it. Only the SC is classifying it, which
shouldn't be the case because SC is not the lawmaker.

Examples of information classified as matters of public


concern

1. Negotiation of contracts between gov. And any other party.


For as long as there is a definite proposition even if it is still
under negotiation that is a matter of public concern and
people have the right to know because according to the SC
the moment the contract is consummated it might be difficult
to correct it if the contract is erroneous or anomalous as ruled
in the case of Chavez vs PEA.

2. Treaty negotiations by history is CONFIDENTIAL for as long


as the treaty is under negotiation, it cannot be disclose to
public. Akbayan vs. Aquino. It is part of the executive
privilege because it is the president who negotiates with the
treaty and he cannot be compelled to disclose it until the
treaty is entered into or ratified.

3. Qualifications of gov. Officials and employees. As taxpayer,


you can demand the civil service commission to disclose the
personal data sheet of the gov. Officials and employees
because it is the taxes of the people that are used to pay
these people and they have the right to know if the gov.
Officials and employees and qualified.

Jurisprudence:

In Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission,it was held


that while the manner of examining public records may

20

be subject to reasonable regulation by the government


agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the
information of public concern, and to afford access to
public records, cannot be discretionary on the part of
said agencies. Otherwise, the enjoyment of the
constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any
whimsical exercise of agency discretion. The constitutional
duty, not being discretionary, its performance may be
compelled by a writ of mandamus in a proper case.

4. Borrowers of GSIS and WON they have paid their loan.


VALMONTE VS BELMONTE CASE. Belmonte argues that it is
confidential, while Valmonte wanted to know who are those
have been contracting loans and have not been paying. SC,
said that the money and funds of GSIS comes from the office
of the gov. Thus the people should be more concerned how
the funds are being spent. The SC ruled that it is a matter of
public concern and be it disclose to the public and president
of GSIS has no discretion to refuse. Valmonte wanted the copy
of the list and summary of the loans that was made and the
balance. SC said that this is a different story, Valmonte was
ordered to make his own summary. You have the information
but as to the accessis subject to such limitation as may be
provided for by law

7. Executive privilege of the President is confidential

8. SC deliberations before it is assign the the ponente. It


cannot be disclose to the public. Impeachment of CJ CORONA,
judiciary in general including lower courts has the right not to
disclose and they cannot be to disclose information
pertaining to how the decision is arrived at. You will know the
decision because you will be given the copy but as to how
that decision was arrived at cannot be disclose because it is a
JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE OF THE COURT.
Part 2 of March 5
*another point to consider is during the impeachment of
Corona case regarding on Judicial Privilege.
Judicial Privilege
-the judiciary in general including the lower courts has the
duty not to disclose and cannot be compelled to disclose how
the decision was arrived at.
-The decision can be availed of since it will be
published but as to how the justices arrived in making that
decision like the notes and deliberation, it is confidential and
therefore you cannot ask for it as part of judicial privilege.
*treaty negotiations are likewise privilege and therefore you
cannot ask for it and it cannot be disclosed to the public.

5. Courts records. They are matters of public concern. They


are accessible but subject to supervision of the court or of the
judge.

It would have been easier to identify which informations are of


public concern if there the information bill is passed especially
on matters that are classified as executive privilege because
president can always invoke executive privilege and he cannot
be compelled to disclose such info.

Informations that cannot be disclosed

1. Matters concerning national security, cannot be disclose


because it will cause danger and inimical to the interest of the
state

2. Military secrets cannot be disclosed

3.Bank accounts cannot be disclosed for protecting the


account owner covered by bank secrecy law. Do not deposit
more 50M because you will be monitor by the anti-money
laundering commission and the bank have the obligation to
report you for suspicion especially if you don't have concrete
means of livelihood.

4. Exception Bank secrecy law, when account is the subject of


the case, criminal or civil or impeachment, the bank will be
compelled to disclose the account of that person.

5. Industrial and trade secrets, cannot be disclosed because it


is protected by the law Like the secret ingredients of Mcdo
and jolibee.

6. Executive sessions of congress, the media cannot disclose


anything that is taken in an executive session because it is
highly confidential.

SECTION 8: RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION


Basis: Man by nature is gregarious. Man by nature is a social
being and always looks for people to talk to or discuss matters
of public concern.
-and for purposes of protecting ones economic interest it
would have been that they are united in one organization for
them to effectively negotiate with their employers as to the
terms and conditions of their employment. In fact theyre
saying that it is in numbers that they will gain strength for the
union and for the union to negotiate with the employers. But
this is true to private companies but what about to public
employees when their employment benefits are not
negotiable? Salary increase for example is determined on the
availability of public funds. So whats the point of forming a
union? Take note guys since this is new to the 1987
Constitution. You cannot find this in the 1973. Nonetheless,
what is emphasized by Section 8 is the right of
government employs public sector to organize unions
and forms associations. Not necessarily to protect their
interest at least to enhance their socialization. However, they
cannot engage in concerted activities. They cannot form a
strike. That is prohibited considering that this involves public
interest and so public concern. Can you imagine if all the
workers of government hospital will go on strike? Or can you
imagine all these guards in the penal institution will go on
strike? Pagawson tanang piniriso. Or all public teachers go on
strike? And the students will be happy for therell be no more
classes and they just passedno sweat. (Case in point:
Malabanan vs Ramento-right to strike does not form an
integral part of your right to association. You can always have
an association without holding a strike and without engaging
in concerted activities. This is the case involving teachers who
had a strike in the premises of Malacanang. It lingered for
weeks and months prejudicing the pupils since they are
having a grand holiday with no classes for about a month
already. And finally the DepEd issued an order ordering the
teachers to go back to work however they refused and so
because of the refusal they were dismissed from service and
now they cry saying that the dismissal is a violation of our
right to association. Simply because we are exercising or
asserted our right to freedom of association and expressing
our grievances to the government, we are being punished
dismissal. Supreme Court said they are incorrect since
the grant of dismissal was not because of the exercise
of the freedom of expression or association and even
to strike but the reason why they were dismissed from
service because they persistently refused to heed a
lawful order of the superior. It is a ground for dismissal.)
-having an organization does not include to be entitled to
legal personality.
Q: How do you consider an organization to have its own
personality that is independent of its members?
A: Register in the Security Exchange Commission.

21

Q: is that a matter of right that once you are registered as an


organization, the government will recognize it as a juridical
person? And if it is denied the right to association is violated?
A: Supreme Court said NO. Because the right to
association does not include the right to be given legal
personality. You can always have an organization without
being registered or given personality as a juridical person by
the government.
Q: is this right to association includes the right to acquire
property?
A: This includes the case of foreigners organized among
themselves and for them to have a clubhouse they need to
buy a land to socialize. Now then, they want that land to be
registered in the name of the association. It was refused by
the Register of Deeds simply because they are foreigners and
the association has members who are all foreigners. They
complain that their right to association has been violated. Are
the correct? Supreme Court said NO because after all
the right to association has nothing to do with the
right to acquire property. You can have an association
without a need to acquire property.
-political parties are organizations for the purpose of
participating in elections. If it is not allowed to participate in
the Barangay elections, is that a violation to the right to
association? Supreme Court said NO because it is an
exercise of police power to ensure that the elections
especially in the grassroots or barangay levels will be
free from any political partisanship activities. To give
chance to those who are smart and who has capacity
even without political party to win an election in the
barangay level and this is the reason for the
prohibition.
Q: is this right to association includes the right not to be
compelled in an organization if you do not like to be a
member thereof?
-Lex Circle is an organization. Are you compelled? Its
automatic. The moment you enroll, you pay the fees
automatically. What if you dont like to become a member?
Simply, its always a choice. Then dont study here. HAHA. Its
just like membership in a homeowners association. Lets say
for example, Maria Luisa Park. Dont you know that the
moment you buy a land there, the title of the land has an
annotation already of your membership of the homeowners
association? 30k per month for maintenance like the security.
Where will the association get the money for the
maintenance? Beautification and lighting of the subdivision
will be taken from the 30k. Where will the association get the
money? From the people. So now, if you dont like to pay the
membership fee and you dont want to be part of the
association, but you want to continue to live there, can you be
compelled to be part of the organization? The Supreme
Court said as far as automatic membership, theres no
violation of the right to association because first of all,
it is not the government who impose that as the
limitation for the acquisition of that property; second,
thy are always free to join or not-if they dont want to
join, DO NOT BUY the property, simple as that.
-another point you should take note guys is the IBP,
ah, that is a different story. All lawyers are required to be
members of the association otherwise you cannot practice
your profession. Only lawyers are closely monitored and
supervised through the Supreme Court. Why? Because of the
nature of their job involving the administration of justice. As I
have said before, if people will lose their trust in the courts
then they will take the law into their hands. That will be too
dangerous and that will be the end of democracy. So the
Supreme Court said that in the exercise of police
power, they need to be closely monitored and
supervised.
*ang nga abogado, in ani siya, the moment you
submit your pleadings and you did not indicate your official
receipt number of your payment of IBP dues, it is just a mere
scrap of paper. That is the compulsion there, the payment of
the annual dues. Supreme Court said that they are never
compelled to join the activities of the IBP. Just pay the
annual dues and participate the seminars the IBP has
provided for you so that you can practice your
profession. Hence, this is an exception. (Case in point:
In re Edillon)
Organizations NOT allowed to form
1. Security guards cannot form, cannot join unions
Basis: too dangerous because theyre armed.
Prohibited by reasons of public safety
2. Law against membership to the Communist Party of
the Philippines
-not a violation of your right to association if you
want to be a member since there is a law against it

stating you cannot. Supreme Court said that this


is not a violation if you are being prohibited
from being a member since CPP has the
purpose of overthrowing the established
government. Therefore, contrary to law and
not protected by the Constitution.
(Case in point: Magdalo which applied for
accreditation under the party list system was denied
or DQ because the means use in order to achieve
good governance is through violence.)
SECTION 18: RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
-means that you cannot be compelled to serve another person
against your will with or without a contract.
Example: I have a contract with USC to teach for a semester.
What if I dont like to teach anymore? Can I be compelled to
continue? NO, violation of my right against involuntary
servitude. What USC can do is to sue me for breach of
contract and claim of damages but definitely they cannot
compel me to resume and finish the contract.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Convicted of a crime and the penalty is to render
hard labor
*parents require to wash dishes after eating

Under the principle of patria


potestas, minor children can be
compelled by their parents to do
household chores as part of their
discipline

Under the principle of posse


comitatus, able embodied persons
like you may be compelled to
render service for the safety of the
community. You can be compelled
to do foot patrolling hence no
violation.
2.

Any citizen can be compelled to render military


service in defense of the State.
-the consentous objectous test does not apply as this
is emphasized in the cases of People vs Lagman
and People vs Zosa.

3.

If you enlisted in the navy or working in a merchant


vessel you cannot just jump overboard if you do not
want to finish your contract and your contract states
that you should be sailing from the port of origin and
back to the port of origin. You cannot therefore
abandoned your ship at the port of destination and
you can be charged with mutiny and you cannot
invoke this right because it will be unfair on the
owner of the ship if you would abandon the ship
when you reached the port of destination.

4.

Those strikers can be compelled to go back to work


upon the order of the Secretary of Department of
Labor or that of the National Labor Relations
Commission.

Take note of the case of Caunca vs Salazar, the house


helper who left and go home and didnt finish her
contract. She cannot be compelled to go back and
continue her service and the employer could ask for
the return of the salary that was pain in advance.
Otherwise the employer can be charged with illegal
detention under 272 of the RPC.
SECTION 20: NON-IMPRISONMENT OF NON-PAYMENT OF
DEBTS
-way mapriso sa utang as along as the utang arises from a
civil contractual or ordinary contract.
-if you contracted the utang by fraud or by swindling the
creditor then you can be put to jail.
Example: nangutang ka sa bangko as a mode of
payment you are required to give checks and so you did. The
amortization is payable monthly. When the amortization
became due, the check that you issued bounced. Can you be
put to jail? YES. Not because you failed to pay the utang
but you defrauded the bank. You can be charged with
estafa not because you did not pay the utang or you
can be charged with BP 22 for issuing a check that is
unfunded.

22

NB: For the commission of the crime, you can be put to


jail. But for not paying the utang, you cannot be put to
jail.
Q; When you go to a hotel or motel for example and sleep
there for a night and just flee without paying, can you be put
to jail?
A: DEFINITELY! That is estafa. Swindling na.
Q: If you failed to pay your boardinghouse, can you be put to
jail?
A: NO. Vergara vs Tenorio, non-payment of rentals is
considered as a contractual obligation. (Please read
the case guys kay ana si Judge migawas daw ni sa bar
IKADAGHAN na times. )
+mibalik siya sa freedom on information
-more recent decision is the copy of SALN. Do you have the
right to know the SALN of the government officials? YES,
considered as a matter of public concern. There is a
duty of the government to disclose their SALN to the public in
the manner provided for by law. After all, public office is a
public trust.
*on liberty of abode and travel
-as to the requirements of permit to travel every time a court
personnel, judge or justice goes abroad. Remember this is a
compulsory requirement and a basis for admin sanctions, if
anyone of the court personnel, judge or justice goes
abroad without the permit to travel issued by the
Court Administrator can be charged administratively.
The purpose of which is to minimize graft and
corruption.
Case in point: OCA vs Judge Macarini, the right to travel
may be regulated and not restricted by providing guidelines
for the judges and court personnel before they can go on
leave and travel abroad. Therefore, it can only be regulated
and not prohibited nor restricted.

23

You might also like