You are on page 1of 65

m

¯ 
   
m à rmal declarati n r enumerati n  the undamental rights secured and  %&' ! %(  3rimacy  Human ights ver 3r perty ights
guaranteed by the C nstituti n t individuals t pr tect them r m (3hilippine Bl ming ills gmpl yees Org. v. 3B C .)
arbitrary and desp tic exercise  g vernmental p ers
m estricti ns are directed against the state and d n t g vern relati ns &)*+*& 
beteen private pers ns. m eed  r n tice and pp rtunity t be heard (n t actual hearing)
 m Úuarantee  pr cedural airness
       ¯   
 
    m 3urp se  pr cedural due pr cess: (a.) c ntribute t the accuracy and
     
¯  ¯¯  thus minimize err r in deprivati n (b.) gives a sense  rati nal
¯  
 ¯ participati n in a decisi n than can aect his destiny and thus enhances
 his dignity as a thinking pers n.
¯  ! "#$# m ai lati ns may be cured by m ti n  r rec nsiderati n
›m 3 lice 3 er
Mm  st essential, insistent and the least limitable  p ers, a. equirements  )* ,&  %#  -*)%&%+ &)%#( (Banc Ãil v.
extending t all the great public needs 3alanca)CO
Mm 9nherent and plenary p er in the State, hich enables it t 1.m  urt r tribunal ith judicial p er t hear and determine
pr hibit all hurtul t the c m rt, saety, and elare  s ciety. cases.
Mm est up n public necessity and the right  state and public t 2.m -urisdicti n must be laully acquired ver the pers n r
selpr tecti n. pr perty
Mm P dge in the legislature and may be delegated t the executive 3.m pp rtunity t be heard
Mm equisites  valid exercise: laul subject and laul means 4.m -udgment rendered up n a laul hearing
›m gminent D main Ô  3r perty al ne is resp nsible  r claim in pr ceedings, but the
Mm ight  the state t acquire private pr perty  r public use up n individual is still named as deendant (unlike  
payment  just c mpensati n   tice t the deendant in this case is O" abs lutely essential.
›m "axati n  3resumpti n  regularity. "hat up n n tice t the pr perty, there is n tice
Mm 3 er  the state t raise revenues. Such must be  r public t the individual.
purp se, equitable and uni rm  3ublicati n is already deemed suicient  r pr cedural due pr cess.

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


  
legitimate.  ere exp sure t publicity d es n t aect impartiality in this case.
m 3resumpti n  c nstituti nality  3ers n alleging must have direct pr   inluence, n t just mere p ssibility.
m 3rincipal Yardstick against exercise  p er  "he public cann t be excluded, especially hen the issue is  public interest.
›m Due pr cess clause
›m gqual pr tecti n clause b. equirements  )* ,&  %# # ¯)$%#% %" &)%#(  
m Pie ± n t just the pr tecti n  the right t be alive r security  ne¶s * %.-*)%&%+&)%#( (Ang "ibay v. C9 )HCSSB9
limb against physical harm. 9t is right t a g d lie emphasizing n the 1.m ight t %#( including right t present case and submit
quality  living evidence
m Piberty ± measure  reed m hich may be enj yed in a civilized 2.m "ribunal must &# %)evidence presented
c mmunity. 9t is the right  the citizen t be ree t use his aculties in all 3.m Decisi n must have s mething t *,, itsel
laul ays. 4.m gvidence must be */ #%+
m 3r perty ± include vested rights, d es n t include public ice, license r 5.m Decisi n must be / ) # "%)#& presented r at least
mere privilege unless such has ev lved int s me  rm  pr perty c ntained in the rec rd
pr tected by the c nstituti n. "his is everything ver hich man may 6.m "ribunal r b dy must act n its n i#),#)# c nsiderati n
have exclusive d mini n r nership. 7.m B ard r b dy must render its decisi n in a manner here

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

parties can kn  the vari us issues and the  #  r decisi n. 1.m  tice and Hearing (imp rtant  r quasi judicial b dies because
ith ut it the c urts  uld lack jurisdicti n)
c. 0)%%#&)%#( 2.m ate must be reas nable and just (may be implied)
1.m gntitled t n tice and hearing be re issuance  arrant ± O 3.m ate must n t be c niscat ry and ppressive.
  tice  uld deeat the purp se  the arrest.
 Úuilt is n t adjudged during these pr ceedings.  Ú vernment b dies have 2 p ers:
2.m gntitled t n tice and hearing during the pr ceedings. 1.m Quasi Pegislative general rules, hich ill aect everyb dy in a
3.m Bail/pr visi nal liberty n t generally given, but bail may be certain class.   rm  n tice, hearing r cr ssexaminati n
given under special circumstances: required.
a.m When extraditee is O" a light risk 2.m Quasijudicial applies exclusively t a speciic entity r pers n. Any
b.m Special Humanitarian c nsiderati ns change must be made ater due n tice and hearing.
c.m gxtraditee d es O" p se a danger t the c mmunity. 3rice Ãixing is c nsidered as an exercise  a quasilegislative uncti n
 Once bail has been granted, it cann t be rev ked. (aceda v. g B)
gxtraudicial 3r ceedings c nsidered in the nature  criminal cases
because there is arrest detenti n and  rced transer t an ther (*+%# ! ! %# a pr essi nal license bec mes a pr perty right
state. "hus due pr cess must be bserved by pr viding bail. ater its issuance. (C r na v. H3A3)
 cann t be taken aay ith ut due pr cess, n tice r hearing.
e. Academic Cases
,&)*+1*%$# !&)$%&&  (AD v. Capul ng) "#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n
9A9AC ater charges are br ught (even be re the charges are br ught and heard)
1. #!$) in riting  the nature  the accusati n since the same is n t in the nature  penalty, but merely a preliminary step in
2. ight t #  charges, pti nally ith c unsel an administrative investigati n. Suspensi n is n t a punishment r penalty  r
3. ight  accused t be %#!$)  evidence against them acts  dish nesty and misc nduct in ice, but is nly a preventive measure.
4. ight t ))*& n evidence "here re it is n t a denial  pr cedural due pr cess (Castill C v. Barbers)
5. gvidence must be &# %)).
% $% +%#%" &aHC
gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic reed m: 1.m ust be  r a "+%) reas n
1. Wh may teach 2.m ust be given the pp rtunity t be ), due pr cess
2. What may be taught 3.m Any evidence derived r m &#! %#/ c unsel is inadmissible.
3. H  it is taught  ight t c unsel is a right even in civil and administrative
4. Wh is admitted t study acc rding t this, they may expel pr ceedings. "he Pab r C de expressly grants the right t c unsel.
students h vi late sch l rules and regulati ns. (Sala v. P C)

. Dep rtati n 3r ceedings ± eect is 3enal in character, s there must be due * 
pr cess .9WSHD  When a statute lacks a c mprehensible standard, it vi lates due pr cess  r
1.m 3reliminary #" %(%# t determine i they are aliens ailure t acc rd pers ns, especially pers ns targeted by it, air n tice 
2.m #  Arrest issued ater inding  just cause c nduct t av id, and it leaves la en rcers ith unbridled discreti n 9
3.m Charge must ,&%!'act r missi n carrying ut pr visi ns.
4.m ight t be )and present evidence up n laul hearing  "he lack  c mprehensible standards means the statute is vague and
( pr secut r because it is a summary judicial pr ceeding) am unts t a lack  due pr cess because  lack  ÃA9 O"9Cg and there is
5.m Ãinal )&+%#  dep rtati n ith basis D g DgPgÚA"9O.
Overbreadth: Ú vernment purp se must n t be achieved ith means hich
g. Ãixing  ates and egulati n  3r essi ns are unnecessarily br ad and invasive  pr tected reed ms.
#)) !(*+%#! 

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

*' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser  r #)) !+%&
hatever decisi n might be rendered against the principal, hether r n t the 1.m Paul 3urp se  r the general elare  the c mmunity.
surety as impleaded in the c mplaint.  tice t the principal is n tice t the 2.m Paul eth d reas nable, n n ppressive and n narbitrary
surety, thus they have been given an pp rtunity t participate in litigati n. 9 means and meth ds empl yed in c nnecti n t the
they ch se n t t intervene, it is deemed that they have aived their right t acc mplishment  the purp se.
be heard.
  tice t the principal is als n tice t the surety (Str ngh ld v. CA)  3 lice p er cann t interere ith private pr perty  r purely aesthetic
purp ses. But here the act is reas nably ithin a pr per c nsiderati n 
%!!#)* $ ) and care  r the public health, saety r c m rt, it sh uld n t be
m à reiture pr ceedings are n t penal in nature there re  uld nly need disturbed by the c urts. (Churchill v. aerty)
substantial evidence. "here is als n need  r assistance  c unsel
(Ãeeder v. CA)  "he State may n t under the guise  3 lice 3 er, permanently divest
 "he right t be presumed inn cent is given nly t an individual in ners  the beneicial use  their pr perty and practically c niscate
criminal cases; and n t t c rp rate entities. them s lely t preserve r assure the aesthetic appearance  the
c mmunity. (3e ple v. Ãajard )
+ * ,&)%#( are a valid exercise  p lice p er  the State t An rdinance may be c nsidered invalid i: P3PS
pr tect the public r m the dissipati n  unds and bank runs. 9t d es n t 1.m 9t ©   
 
   +%$% the may r¶s discreti n
need n tice and hearing as l ng as there is subsequent judicial revie. (CB v. 2.m 9t  #,*,  t be attained by requiring a permit
CA) 3.m enumerates n c nditi n  r its grant r reusal
3r cedure: g g 4.m &2  #)) , c nerring up n the may r arbitrary and
1.m 0$%#%# by Central Bank unrestricted p er.
2.m , by  netary B ard n the bank c ncerned
3.m 3rima Ãacie "%)#& ab ut the bank¶s bad inancial c nditi n 3*#%&%,++%&# ! c uld be classiied int : OO
(1) "h se imp sed  r (*+%#(&&*,%# r regular enterprises,
#&++%# ! ,' %( i deemed t be a cust m vi lates due (2) "he regulati n r restricti n  ##.* !*+&&*,%# r enterprises,
pr cess (American 9nterashi n v. O3) (3) Ã r "#* purp ses nly.
0, *  initially as nly a privilege but eventually ev lved int a Ordinance is a valid exercise  p lice p er t minimize certain practices
 rm  pr perty right hich sh uld n t be rem ved arbitrarily and ith ut hurtul t public m rals. "he alarming increase in the rate  pr stituti n,
due pr cess. adultery and  rnicati n in anila traceable in great part t the existence 
9nput taxes O" pr perties n r pr perty rights but mere statut ry privilege. m tels. "axati n may be made t implement a p lice p er and the am unt,
bject, and instance  taxati n is dependent up n the l cal legislative b dy.
 */ #%"*&  P  
m 9nterest  public requires such intererence and the means are 
reas nably necessary  r the acc mplishment  the purp se and n t   0 p lice p er t regulate behavi r. C ngress can legislate
unduly ppressive m rality thr ugh sin taxes. (grmitaalate v. City ay r  anila)
m Piberty  the citizen may be restrained in the interest  public health,
public rder and saety, r anything else ithin the sc pe  p lice p er.  "he extincti n   rtgage and ther liens ned by legitimate credit rs 
m 9t is the duty  the legislature t : 9 AÚ 9 c nstitutes a taking ith ut due pr cess. "he m rtgages and l ans are
1.m determine hat the i#   the public require purely private and have n t sh n t be aected ith private interest;
2.m Determine hat $ * are necessary  r the pr tecti n  such there re, there as n cause t deprive the private individuals  vested
interests. pr perty rights. Outright c niscati n  3r perty ith ut O"9Cg and
 "he determinati n,  the legislature n hat is a pr per exercise  HgA 9Ú is invalid. 9 there is a 2%#(, there must be ust C mpensati n.
p lice p er is subject t the supervisi n  the c urts ( S v. " ribi ) (DC v. 3hil aeterans Bank)

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

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


interere ith private businesses, hich is a pr perty right  the ner.   !  #/+#  !   #4  0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v.
"heaters, cinemas and ther exhibiti ns cann t be c nsidered 3   " rres)
(Balacuit v. CÃ9) 1.m Whether by his c nduct, the individual has exhibited an expectati n
 privacy.
2.m Whether s ciety deems this expectati n reas nable.
(*# ± a statute r act is vague hen it lacks c mprehensible  A statute must satisact rily sh  the presence  c mpelling state interest
standards that men  c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess at its and that the la, rule, regulati n is narr ly dran t preclude abuses.
meaning and dier as t its applicati n. 9t vi lates due pr cess  r ailure t 
acc rd t pers n air n tice  the c nduct t av id and it leaves la en rcers 1*%$# ! */+%&%#. "he absence  publicati n is atal as held in
unbridled discreti n in carrying ut its pr visi ns and bec mes an arbitrary "anada v. "uvera. gven i a    ©     is internal in nature, i its
lexing  g vernment muscles. eects reach ut t pe ple ther than its empl yees, then it must be
published. (3ilipinas Ka v. CA)
%).!."(*#  )&%# ± a statute hich either  rbids r requires  All statutes, including th se  l cal applicati n, and private las must be
the d ing  an act in terms s vague that men  c mm n intelligence must published as a c nditi n  r their eectivity. Als c vered are 3D¶s, gO¶s and
necessarily guess its meaning and dier as t its applicati n administrative rules and regulati ns in s ar as they implement existing la
pursuant t a valid delegati n. Whether r n t the circular addresses a small
"/) )&%# ± a g vernmental purp se may n t be achieved by gr up r n t, the act that it is an administrative circular hich en rces las,
means hich seep unnecessarily br adly and thereby invade the area  makes publicati n imperative. (3H9PSA v. Secretary  Pab r)
pr tected reed m
*/+%& !!%& is n t a pr perty right but a statut ry right. C ngress may
 !"+%))%##&C 3"Ú pr vide  r requirements and limits t public ice.
(a) d es n t &#"# the c nstituti n r statute  yalties: taking  pr perty ith ut just c mpensati n.
(b) must *#!% r ppressive 
(c) must ,%+#))% &%$%#' *#%&# . "he p ssessi n  irearms, as ell as a gun license permitting
(d) must pr hibit but may regulate ) the carrying  irearms, is nly a privilege and O" a right. "he regulati n 
(e) must be (#+ and c nsistent ith public p licy irearms all ithin the p lice p er  the State, as it regulates its use and
() must *# #/+ pr tecti n  r the public saety and elare  the general s ciety. (Chavez v.
 An rdinance must n t c ntravene the C nstituti n r any Statute (agtajas mul )
v. 3ryce)
 Due pr cess d es n t alays entail judicial pr ceedings, especially hen it # %# . are n t c nsidered a gratuity. "hey are delayed c mpensati n
c mes t taxati n. hich vests the recipient ith a legitimate pr perty interest. (ÚS9S v.
 ntesclar s)
 9n ++(+* !,', the acti n  the p ssess r and n t the ner is
binding. 9t serves t prevent urther illegal use  the pr perty. %$# #!% . etirement beneits  military pers nnel are
 "he state is n t required t c mpensate the ner  r pr perty it has gratuit us in character, as such they nly gave uture beneits. 9t is nly hen
already laully acquired under the exercise  g vernmental auth rity ther the empl yee retires and bec mes eligible, that he acquires a vested right t
than the p er  eminent d main. (Bennis v. ichigan) said beneits. (3arren v. COA)

! %#. is a legitimate subject  3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals  3 lice 3 er, in the interest  Úeneral Welare and 3ublic Health, AY
and ther  rkers meet reas nably regulat ry standards, n such deprivati n impair c ntracts. (Beltran v. Sec.  Health)
 pr perty exists. ( 3r m ti n and anagement v. CA)  $# . are like ther c ntracts, subject t the verriding demands,
  vi lati n  pr perty rights, the state can regulate entry int business as needs and interests  the greater number as the State may determine in the
l ng as it is reas nable. exercise  its p lice p er. ( BÃHA9 v. City ay r  3aranaque)

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

0m "he purp se  the la is t all  the emergence  y unger bl d in l cal


 3 lice p er, need n t pr ve exact scientiic c nclusiveness r research, as g vernments, s the la as declared valid. (Dumla v. COgPgC)
l ng as the exercise  hich remains reas nable and n t unduly ppressive.
(iras l v. D3WH) #). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences
make the distincti n reas nably related t the valid purp se. "he pr hibiti n
&*%' ! #*. While the right   rkers t security  tenure is   men bartenders as attributed t the danger present in their  rkplace,
guaranteed by the C nstituti n, its exercise may be reas nably regulated ith the bject  pr tecting the m rals   men. (Ú esart v. Cleary)
pursuant t the p lice p er  the State t saeguard health, m rals, peace,
educati n, rder, saety, and the general elare  the pe ple. 0%#( )%##&. "ax sh uld n t be passed  r speciic c mpanies/entities
nly,  r it ill n t be applicable t uture c nditi ns, and ill serve t exclude
1*+&%#! any subsequently established sugar central,  the same class as plainti,
m Úuarantees legal equality  all be re the la r m the c verage  the tax. (Orm c Sugar C . v. "reasurer  Orm c)
m gqual pr tecti n clause can als be vi lated n t by denial  equality but
by creating a system that can  ster inequality (3e ple v. aera)  9t is inherent in the p er t tax that a state be ree t select the subjects 
m "he guaranty  gqual 3r tecti n is n t vi lated by a legislati n based n taxati n, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities hich result r m a
reas nable classiicati n. singling ut  ne particular class  r taxati n, r exempti n inringe n

&+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SÚPg c nstituti nal limitati n. (Sis n r. v. Ancheta)
1.m 9t must rest n */ #%+ distincti ns
2.m 9t must be ($# t the purp se  the la  Special grant  tax exempti n in av r  the arc z heirs ill c nstitute
3.m 9t must +%$%) t existing c nditi ns nly class legislati n. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ)
4.m 9t must apply 1*++' t all members  the same class
$/+%#(.ust h  3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3AÚCO is
 it d es n t demand abs lute equality am ng residents, it merely requires vi lative  equal pr tecti n is n t clearly explained. "he mere act that s me
that all pers ns similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like gambling activities like c ckighting (3D 449) h rseracing ( A 306, amended
circumstances; b th as t privileges c nerred and liabilities en rced. ("iu v. by A 983), seepstakes, l ttery and races ( A 1169 amended by B3 42) are
CA) legalized under certain c nditi ns, hile thers are pr hibited, d es n t render
these las, speciically 3D 1869, unc nstituti nal.
¯+%#   "he g3C d es n t mean that all things called by the same name sh uld be
"he dierence in status beteen citizens and aliens c nstitute a basis  r treated the same ay. (Basc v. 3AÚCO )
reas nable classiicati n in the exercise  p lice p er. SC held that the
disputed la as enacted t remedy an actual threat and danger t nat¶l  &% % . Dismissal  a case against ne deendant must apply t
ec n my p sed by alien d minance and c ntr l  the retail trade, and  uld thers i n reas nable distincti ns exist. ( epublic v. Sandiganbayan)
ree citizens r m such d minance and c ntr l. (9ch ng v. Hernandez)
$+ .9nequalities hich result r m the singling ut  ne
 "he 350.00 ee is unreas nable because it ails t c nsider valid substantial particular class  r tax exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. "here is
dierences in situati n am ng individual aliens h are required t pay it. a substantial distincti n beteen the h meless p r and the h meless less
"he same am unt is c llected r m every alien, hether he is a casual r p r because the 2nd gr up can a rd t rent h uses in the meantime.
permanent empl yee, parttime r ulltime, an empl yee r an executive. (" lentin v. Sec.  Ãinance)
(aillegas v. Hui Chi ng 3a H )
 3 lice p er inv lves the duty t pr vide  r the real needs  the pe ple.
"he term ³n nresident alien´ and its bverse ³resident alien,´ must be given "he Burial Assistance 3r gram is a relie  pauperism. 3aupers may be
their technical c nn tati n under ur la n immigrati n. "here lies reas nably classiied. Dierent gr ups may receive varying treatment.
substantial dierences beteen the t . (Úeneral illing C rp. v. " rres) Statutes have been passed giving rights and beneits t the disabled and the
less  rtunate. (Binay v. D ming )

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant


* ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m rests up n the discreti n  the trial c urt. (S rian v. CA)
ther pers ns charged criminally r administratively ins ar as preventive
suspensi n is c ncerned. 3 licemen carry eap ns and the badge  la hich +&%# . incumbents running  r the same p siti n are n t c nsidered
can be used t harass r intimidate itnesses against them, and there re resigned because the intenti n  the la is t all  them t c ntinue serving
needs t be suspended in rder t pr tect itnesses against him. (Himagan v. their c nstituents and av id a disrupti n in the delivery  essential services.
3e ple) "h se running  r dierent p siti ns are c nsidered resigned because they are

#&%  .a ranchise is n t in the strict sense a simple c ntract but rather c nsidered t have aband ned their present p siti n by their act  running
it is m re imp rtantly, a mere privilege especially in matters hich are ithin  r ther p sts. (Aguinald v. COgPgC)
the g vernment's p er t regulate and even pr hibit thr ugh the exercise 
the p lice p er. "hus, a gambling ranchise is alays subject t the exercise  "he purp se  the singling ut is t ensure the impartiality  the electi n
 p lice p er  r the public elare. (Pim v. 3acquing) icers by preventing them r m devel ping amiliarity ith the pe ple in the
 place assigned t them. "he purp se  the la is t break an imp rtant link in
 "here is substantial distincti n beteen landbased and seabased Ãilipin the chain  c rrupti n. With ut the c mplicity  such icials, largescale
verseas  rkers in terms , am ng ther things,  rk envir nment, saety, v ter registrati n an malies can hardly be carried ut. (De Úuzman v.
dangers and risks t lie and limb, and accessibility t s cial, civic, and COgPgC)
spiritual activities. (C nerence  aritime anning Agencies v. 3OgA)
"here are substantial distincti ns beteen glective and App intive Oicials:
 9t is gr ssly unair t exempt ne similarly situated litigant r m pr secuti n 1: elective icials ccupy ice by the maj rity¶s mandate ± they can nly be
ith ut all ing the same exempti n t the thers. "he equal pr tecti n rem ved under stringent circumstances; app intive icials h ld ice by
guarantee perates against uneven applicati n  legal n rms s that all virtue  designati n by an app inting auth rity
pers ns under similar circumstances  uld be acc rded the same treatment. 2: App intive icials are n t all ed t engage in partisan p litical activity,
( egala v. Sandiganbayan) hile elective icials bvi usly may (Ãarinas v. gxecutive Secretary)

 "he per rmance  legitimate and even essential duties by public icers 1*+'!1*+2.pers ns h  rk  r equal qualiicati ns, skill,
has never been an excuse t ree a pers n validly in pris n. Ãuncti ns and e rt and resp nsibility, under similar c nditi ns, sh uld be paid equally.
duties  the ice are n t substantial distincti ns hich lit the accused r m Salaries sh uld n t be used as an enticement  r  reignhires, t the
the class  pris ners interrupted in their reed m and restricted in liberty  prejudice  l calhires. (9S v. Quisumbing)
m vement. (3e ple v. al sj s)
#+'."he death penalty la applies t all pers ns and all classes 
 "here are substantial dierences beteen big invest rs h are lured t pers ns.  particular gr up r classes  pers ns are identiied by the la
establish their industries in the ³secured areas´ c mpared t business against h m the death penalty shall be exclusively imp sed. (3e ple v.
perat rs utside the area. "he irst can give ec n mic impact that is nati nal ercad )
in sc pe, the ther, merely l cal ("iu v. CA) 
  5    
           
+&$$*#%&%# ."a and radi are m re pervasive and persuasive;       ¯  ¯ 

 ¯ ¯   ¯ ¯


print media d es n t really reach the hardt reach places in the 3hilippines ¯    ¯ 6    ¯  ¯  ¯
 ¯
hile access t "a and radi c ntent is practically simultane us ("gPgBA3 v.    ¯   ¯ ¯   ¯   ¯ ¯ 
COgPgC) ¯ ¯
 ¯   ¯    7    ¯
 "he payment  the civil liability is n t made a c nditi n    t ¯      3  ¯    -  ¯
 
pr bati n. 3etiti ner¶s applicati n  r pr bati n had already been granted. 7¯3¯    ¯   ¯

 3¯ 
    3¯
Satisacti n  his civil liability as n t made a requirement be re he c uld ¯       3¯   ¯ ¯ ¯ 
avail  pr bati n, but as a c nditi n  r his c ntinued enj yment  the       ¯    ¯   ¯      
    6

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 private individuals. (3e ple v. arti)



 3
3 ¯   **remedy may be  und in the Civil C de and in the 3C.
 
0&,%#9 search is reas nable & ± an examinati n  a man¶s h use r ther buildings r premises, r
  his pers n r his vehicle ith a vie t the disc very  c ntraband, illicit
        and st len pr perty r s me evidence  guilt t be used in pr secuti n  a
 criminal acti n  r s me crime r ense charged.
%"+%) %*"+%) %* #*
# # #8/' ,*,  #%  &: &;<
  %"  A ³ utine Checkp int´ d es n t intrude n a m t rists right t ³ree passage
equirements: 1) 9ncidental t #)%"%)*+9 1) Subp ena ith ut interrupti n,´ but it inv lves nly a brie detenti n  travelers during
1) 9ssued up n laul arrest  duces tecum hich the vehicle¶s ccupants are required t anser a brie questi n r t .
pr bable cause (Sec 12, ule 1) SO3 (3e ple 2) Administrative As l ng as the vehicle is neither searched, n r its ccupants subjected t a
2) 3ers nally 126  ules  vs. arti) 9nspecti n b dy search, and the inspecti n  the vehicle is limited t a visual search,
examined by the C urt) 2) Security Check r utine checks cann t be regarded as vi lative  an individuals¶ right against
judge 2) 3lain vie (3e ple vs unreas nable search. (aalm nte v. Úen. De ailla)
3) gxamined 3)  ving vehicle B ngcaraan)
under ath and 4) C nsented  #)$*( %#(."he perative c ncepts in the mandat ry drug
airmati n arrantless  testing are "rand mness" and "suspici nless." 9n the case  pers ns charged
4) 3articularly search ith a crime be re the pr secut r's ice, a mandat ry drug testing can
describing the 5) Cust ms never be rand m r suspici nless.
place t be searches
searched and the 6) St p and Ãrisk When pers ns suspected  c mmitting a crime are charged, they are singled
pers ns r things 7) gxigent and ut and are impleaded against their ill. "he pers ns thus charged, by the
t be seized gmergency bare act  being haled be re the pr secut r's ice and peaceably
(Sec. 2 Art. 999, circumstances submitting themselves t drug testing, i that be the case, d n t necessarily
y v. B9 ) 8) suspici nless c nsent t the pr cedure, let al ne aive their right t privacy.
5) arrant must drug tests
n t be  r m re " imp se mandat ry drug testing n the accused is a blatant attempt t
than ne ense harness a medical test as a t l  r criminal pr secuti n, c ntrary t the
( evised OC) stated bjectives  A 9165. Drug testing in this case  uld vi late a
 pers ns' right t privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. 999  the C nstituti n.
 W rse still, the accused pers ns are veritably  rced t incriminate
 themselves. (SS v. DDB)
 
 %=*± as l ng as the pr perty is in c ntr l  the pers n arrested, even i
¯
)$!$ &#)¯  he d es n t p ssess nership, such may be seized (Burg s v. Chie  Sta)
*,   St pping a pers n, even th ugh an arrest is n t c mmenced, is a ³seizure´
(a) " pr tect the privacy and sanctity  his pers n, pr perty and h use ("erry v. Ohi )
(b) " guarantee against unlaul arrest and ther  rms  restraint. ¯  ± t deprive a pers n  his liberty by legal auth rity. 9t is he taking 
a pers n int cust dy in rder that he may be b und t anser  r the
Secti n 2 is pr tecti n against unlaul searches by       c mmissi n  an ense.
  and d es n t pr tect citizens r m unlaul searches and seizures by
9n arrest cases there must be:

  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

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


2.m and that the pers n t be arrested c mmitted it, As t Assailing the 9llegality  a Seizure:
*Which  c urse can exist ith ut any sh ing that evidence  the 9t is ell settled that the legality  a seizure can be c ntested 
by the
crime ill be  und at premises under that pers n's c ntr l. (Webb v. party h se rights have been impaired thereby, and that the bjecti n t an
De Pe n) unlaul search and seizure is 
   and cann t be availed  by
third parties. (St nehill v. Di kn )
& # ± an rder in riting issued in the name  the epublic
signed by a judged and directed t a peace icer c mmanding him t search "he right t bject t the admissi n  said papers in evidence bel ngs
 r pers nal pr perty described therein and bring it be re the c urt.  
t the c rp rati ns, t h m the seized eects bel ng, and may
n t be inv ked by the c rp rate icers in pr ceedings against them in their
9n search cases, t c nclusi ns must be supp rted by substantial evidence: individual capacity. (St nehill v. Di kn )
1.m that the items s ught are in act seizable by virtue  being
c nnected ith criminal activity, and As t 9llegally Obtained gvidence:
2.m that the items ill be  und in the place t be searched. 9t is n t als As t aAP9D legal items that have been illegally seized, it sh uld be returned
necessary that a particular pers n be implicated. (Webb v. De Pe n) t the ners. But hen illegal items such as unlicensed irearms r drugs are
illegally btained, it is kept in      r in cust dy  la. "hey are
A search arrant may be issued  r the search and seizure : inadmissible as evidence in c urt, but since they are pr hibited items under
1.m pr perty subject  the ense la, the pers n h as in cust dy  such as n t the legal ner, and the
2.m pr perty st len r embezzled and pr ceeds/ruits  the ense items must be c niscated by la.
3.m pr perty used r intended t be used as the mans  c mmitting an 
ense #!¯ ± a ritten rder made n behal  the state and is based
up n a c mplaint issued pursuant t a statute r rule and hich c mmand la
Secti n 2, ule 126  the ules  C urt, d es n t require that the pr perty en rcement t arrest a pers n and bring him be re a c urt.
t be seized sh uld be ned by the pers n against h m the search arrant
is directed. 9t may r may n t be ned by him. 9n act, under subsecti n [b] ¯  ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯  
 the ab vequ ted Secti n 2, ne  the pr perties that may be seized is "he applicant must sh : "he applicant must sh ´
st len pr perty. ecessarily, st len pr perty must be ned by ne ther 1.)m "hat the items s ught are in 1.)m 3r bable cause that an
than the pers n in h se p ssessi n it may be at the time  the search and act seizable by virtue  ense has been c mmitted.
seizure. Onership, there re, is  n c nsequence, and it is suicient that being c nnected ith 2.)m "hat the pers n t be
the pers n against h m the arrant is directed has c ntr l r p ssessi n  criminal activity; and arrested c mmitted it.
the pr perty s ught t be seized. (Burg s Sr. v. Chie  Sta) 2.)m "hat the items ill be  und
in the place t be searched.
3artially 9nvalid Warrant "he judge must c nduct a pers nal, "he judge need n t c nduct a
 pr visi n  la exists hich requires that a arrant, partially deective in searching examinati n  the pers nal examinati n  the applicant
speciying s me items s ught t be seized yet particular ith respect t the applicant and his itnesses. and itnesses. He may rely n the
ther items, sh uld be nulliied as a h le. (icr s t v. axic rp) aidavits  the itnesses and the
 9n cases here a dierent name is inserted as the ner  a pr perty t be rec mmendati n  the pr secut r.
searched, it is nly a harmless deect, as l ng as it is nly a search  the 3rescripti n: 10 days 3rescripti n: until served.
premises and n t  pers ns. 

 When a judge issues alm st exactly the same arrant as the ld ne,  9  r s me reas n, a search as n t c mpleted n the irst day it as
herein nly the municipality r number  the address is changed, the ld undertaken, such as the v luptu usness  the material t be seized, the
arrant is deemed rev ked by the ne arrant, and it is presumed that the search n the 2nd day is deemed a c ntinuati n  the riginal search. "he
ne arrant is issued in rder t c rrect s me deect in the ld arrant.

ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

search may be per rmed any day ithin the 10day prescriptive peri d. c nnecti n ith the ense are in the place s ught t be searched.
(ustang Pumber) 9t als demands that ³n less than pers nal kn ledge by the
c mplainant r his itnesses  the acts up n the issuance  a
9t is nly the udge h may issue arrants  search and arrest. ay rs may search arrant may be justiied. (20th Century à x ilm C rp. v. CA,
n t exercise this p er, n r may it be d ne by a mere pr secuting b dy. "he Burg s Sr. v. Chie  Sta, C rr v. Pising; riginally r m Henry v.
ne excepti n t this rule is the dep rtati n  illegal and undesirable aliens, S 1959)
hich arrest may be issued r rdered by the 3resident r the C mmissi n 
9mmigrati n. (Salazar v. Achac s )  3r bable Cause need n t be based n clear and c nvincing evidence  guilt,
neither n evidence establishing guilt bey nd reas nable d ubt, and deinitely
C mmissi ner  9mmigrati n cann t issue arrants  arrest in aid merely  n t n evidence establishing abs lute certainty  guilt. Be re issuing
his investigat ry p er. H ever, he may rder the arrest  an alien in rder arrants  arrest, judges merely determine  
   
 
t carry ut a dep rtati n rder that has already bec me inal. (B ard    
  guilt  an accused. 9n d ing s , judges d n t c nduct a  
C mmissi ners v. Dela sa) hearing t determine the existence  pr bable cause. "hey just  

  the initial determinati n  the pr secut r inding a pr bable cause t
An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and see i it is supp rted by     . [O"g: need n t p int t a
detached and must be capable  determining hether pr bable cause exists. speciic ense] (Webb v. De Pe n)

1*% % !+%)# "he testim nies  the t itnesses, c upled ith the bject and
A search arrant must c n rm strictly t the requirements  the  reg ing d cumentary evidence they presented, are suicient t establish the existence
c nstituti nal and statut ry pr visi ns. "hese requirements are:  pr bable cause. "he determinati n  pr bable cause d es n t call  r the
(1) the arrant must be issued up n pr bable cause; applicati n  rules and standards  pr  that a judgment  c nvicti n
(2) the pr bable cause must be determined by the judge himsel and n t by requires ater trial n the merits. (icr s t v. axic rp)
the applicant r any ther pers n;
(3) in the determinati n  pr bable cause, the judge must examine, under ³3r bable cause´ is c ncerned ith pr bability, n t abs lute r even m ral
ath r airmati n, the c mplainant and such itnesses as the latter may certainty. "he pr secuti n need n t present at this stage pr  bey nd
pr duce; and reas nable d ubt. "he standards  judgment are that  reas nably prudent
(4) the arrant issued must particularly describe the place t be searched and man, n t the exacting calibrati ns  a judge ater a ullbl n trial. (icr s t
pers ns r things t be seized. ( y v. B9 ) v. axic rp)

9//+*  ± such reas ns, supp rted by acts and circumstances, as à r purp ses  issuing a arrant, nly a judge can determine pr bable cause.
ill arrant a cauti us man in the belie that his acti n and the means taken à r purp ses  iling an in rmati n, the pr secuti n determines pr bable
in pr secuting it, are legally just and pr per. Dg"g 9gD BY "Hg ÃAC"S OÃ cause. Determinati n  pr bable cause during a preliminary investigati n is
gACH CASg. an executive uncti n. (3e ple v. CA)
 9t must be pr bable cause  s mething speciic (St nehill vs. Dl kn )
 9t must be deined 9n relati n t the acti n hich 9t justiies Suiciency  Aidavit
 ere c nclusi ns  la d n t establish pr bable cause (C rr vs. Pising) When the Aidavit  the applicant  the c mplaint c ntains suicient acts
(Burg s vs. Chie  Sta) ithin his pers nal and direct kn ledge, it is suicient i the judge is satisied
›m 3r bable cause  r an arrest ± acts and circumstances hich  uld that there exist pr bable cause; hen the applicant's kn ledge  the acts is
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an mere hearsay, the aidavit  ne r m re itnesses having a pers nal
ense has been c mmitted by the pers n s ught t be arrested. kn ledge  the act is necessary. (Alvarez v. CÃ9)

›m 3r bable cause  r a search ± acts and circumstances hich  uld 3r secut r¶s Certiicati n
lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an "he judge may rely up n the iscal's certiicati n  the existence  pr bable
ense has been c mmitted and that the bjects s ught in cause and, n the basis there , issue a arrant  arrest. But such

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

certiicati n d es n t bind the judge. "he issuance  a arrant is n t a mere C ) and the "Cs in cases iled ith them ater appr priate preliminary
ministerial uncti n; it calls  r the exercise  judicial discreti n n the part  investigati ns c nducted by icers auth rized t d s ther than judges 
the issuing magistrate. Secti n 6, ule 112  the ules  C urt pr vide that: e"Cs, "Cs and C"Cs. 

9 n the ace  the in rmati n the judge inds n pr bable cause, he may
disregard the iscals certiicati n and require the submissi n  the aidavits nder these c urts, it has been held that: "he judge is # 1*%) 
 itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence  a , #++' 0$%#  &$,+%## #) %  %#   Ã ll ing
pr bable cause. (3lacer v. aillanueva) Seaestablished d ctrine and pr cedure, he shall
1.m 3ers nally evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments
By itsel the pr secut r¶s certiicati n  pr bable cause is ineectual. 9t is the submitted by the iscal regarding the existence  pr bable cause
rep rts, aidavits and ther supp rting d cuments behind the pr secut r¶s and, n the basis there , issue a arrant  arrest; r
certiicati n hich are material t assisting the judge in making his 2.m 9 n the basis there  he inds n pr bable cause, he may
determinati n. "he extent  the udge's pers nal examinati n  the rep rt a.m disregard the iscal's rep rt and require the submissi n 
and its annexes depends n the circumstances  each case. "he pers nal supp rting aidavits  itnesses t aid him in arriving at a
determinati n is vested in the udge by the C nstituti n. 9t can be as brie r c nclusi n as t the existence  pr bable cause, O
as detailed as the circumstances  each case require(Pim Sr. v. Ãelix) b.m pers nally examine the applicant and itnesses t
determine pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar, berts v.
 udges must O" rely s lely n the rep rt  the pr secut r they must CA)
evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments hich may c nsist 
aidavits, transcripts, and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the "he judge is n t required t pers nally examine the c mplainant and his
pr secut r¶s certiicati n ( berts v. CA) itnesses and n the basis there  issue a arrant  arrest. He may als rely
 n the iscal¶s rep rt r i n the basis there  he inds n pr bable cause he
59 #+0$%#%#!-*)( may disregard the iscal¶s rep rt and require the submissi n  supp rting
 aidavits  itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence
nder existing las, arrants  arrest may be issued:  pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar) But it may n t be delegated t a clerk
(1) by the etr p litan "rial C urts (e"Cs) except th se in the ati nal (Bache v. uiz)
Capital egi n, unicipal "rial C urts ("Cs), and unicipal Circuit "rial
C urts (C"Cs) in cases alling ithin their exclusive riginal jurisdicti n; What is required is     and n t      
 in cases c vered by the rule n summary pr cedure here the accused ails (S liven v. udge akasiar)
t appear hen required; **Bernas rec mmends c mparing the d ctrine r m S liven ith the d ctrine
 and in cases iled ith them hich are c gnizable by the egi nal "rial r m Bache and C . v. uiz
C urts ( "Cs); 
What the C nstituti n undersc res is the exclusive and pers nal resp nsibility
# &# % * nly i the judge is satisied ater an examinati n in  the issuing judge t satisy himsel  the existence  pr bable cause.
riting and under ath  the c mplainant and the itnesses, in the  rm  (S liven v. udge akasiar)
searching questi ns and ansers, that a pr bable cause exists and that there
is a necessity  placing the resp ndent under immediate cust dy in rder n t "he judge must examine the c mplainant and his itnesses under ath r
t rustrate the ends  justice. airmati n. "his has been interpreted as requiring a pers nal and n t merely
delegated examinati n by the judge r by the pr per icer, because the
 3r bable cause is 3g SOAPPY Dg"g 9gD by the judge ater examinati n purp se  the examinati n is t c nvince the judge r icer himsel and n t
under ath r airmati n  the c mplainant/applicant and all itnesses h any ther individual. (Bache and C . v. uiz; Alvarez v. C urt)
have pers nal kn ledge  the ense under ath and in riting. (Allad v.
Di kn ) A judge cann t rely  
n the certiicati n r rec mmendati n  a
pr secut r that pr bable cause exists  r the purp se  issuing a arrant. By
(2) by the etr p litan "rial C urts in the ati nal Capital egi n (e"Cs itsel, the 3r secut r¶s certiicati n  pr bable cause is ineectual. "he judge

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

must l k at the rep rt, the aidavits, the transcripts  sten graphic n tes (i
any) and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the 3r secut r¶s certiicati n. A search arrant must n t nly be based n pr bable cause but als must be
(Pim v. Ãelix) based n an applicati n supp rted by ath  the applicant and the itnesses
he may pr duce. 9ts purp se is t c nvince the c mmitting magistrate  the
"est  Suiciency ± hether it had been dran in such a manner that perjury existence  pr bable cause.
c uld be charged i such is untrue.
"he ailure  the itness t menti n particular individuals d es n t
gxaminati n  c mplainant must be in the  rm  searching questi ns and necessarily pr ve that he had n pers nal kn ledge  speciic illegal
ansers in rder t determine the existence  pr bable cause. (Silva v. "C transacti ns  the Organizati n,  r the itness might be acquainted ith
egr s) speciic transacti ns, even i the names  the individuals c ncerned ere
unkn n t him. (Central Bank v.  re)
"he reading  the sten graphic n tes t resp ndent udge did n t c nstitute
suicient c mpliance ith the c nstituti nal mandate  pers nal examinati n "he examining judge has t take dep siti ns in riting  the c mplainant and
 r by that manner resp ndent udge did n t have the pp rtunity t bserve the itnesses he may pr duce and t attach them t the rec rd. Such ritten
the demean r  the c mplainant and his itness. "hese ere imp rtant in dep siti n is necessary in rder that the judge may be able t pr perly
arriving at a s und inerence n the questi n  /n there as pr bable cause. determine the existence r n nexistence  pr bable cause, and t h ld liable
(Bache & C . 9nc v. uiz)  r perjury the pers n giving it i it ill be  und later that his declarati ns are
alse. (3e ple v. amaril)
3ers nal gxaminati n  gvidence:
"he presentati n  the master tapes  the c pyrighted ilms r m hich the -9%&*+%'! &%,%#
pirated ilms ere allegedly c pied, as necessary  r the validity  search .A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized
arrants against th se h have in their p ssessi n the pirated ilms. "his hen the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill rdinarily
linkage  the c pyrighted ilms t the pirated ilms must be established t all  and by hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search
satisy the requirements  pr bable cause. ere allegati ns as t the and seizure. (Bache & C . v. uiz)
existence  the c pyrighted ilms cann t serve as basis  r the issuance  a 
search arrant. (20th Century à x Ãilm v. CA)  Secti n 1, paragraphs 3,  Article 999  the C nstituti n, and secti n 97 
Úeneral Orders,  . 58 pr vide that the !!%)"% t be presented, hich shall
90$%#)*#) #)¯!!%$%# serve as the basis  r determining hether pr bable cause exist and hether
 the arrant sh uld be issued, must c ntain a particular descripti n  the
Searching Questi ns: place t be searched and the pers n r thing t be seized. "hese pr visi ns
Warrant issued ill be declared   i the judge d es n t ask SgA CH9Ú are mandat ry and must be strictly c mplied. (Alvarez v. CÃ9) 9t must O" be
Q gS"9OS, and merely asks curs ry questi ns that mirr r the applicati n t general. (St nehill v. Di kn )
iled by the c mplainant r itness, such as:
Mm Questi ns that are simple ³yes´ r ³n ´ questi ns pertaining t "he purp se and intent  this requirement is t limit the things t be seized
basic matters like identity and things t be seized, already t nly th se particularly described in the search arrant ± t leave the
c ntained in the applicati n  r search arrant iled. icers  the la ith n discreti n regarding hat articles they sh uld seize,
Mm Questi ns that are r utinary and very br ad. (Silva v. 3residing t the end that unreas nable searches and seizures, r abuses, may n t be
udge  "C  egr s Occidental) c mmitted. (C rr v. Pising)
Oath an utard pledge, given by pers n taking it, that his attestati n r
pr mise is made under immediate sense  resp nsibility t Ú d. (Alvarez vs. 3urp se r this requirement is t prevent abuse by the icer en rcing the
CÃ9) arrant by leaving him ith n discreti n as t h r hat t search r
Airmati n a s lemn and  rmal declarati n that an aidavit is true, this seize. (Bernas)
being substituted  r an ath in certain cases. Here, there is n inv cati n 
Ú d r a supreme being.

66 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

9t is n t required that technical precisi n  descripti n be required,


particularly here, by the nature  the g ds t be seized, their descripti n  "he particularity  the place is essential t the issuance  search arrants
must be rather general, since the requirement  a technical descripti n  uld t av id the exercise  the en rcing icers  discreti n. "he place t be
mean that n arrant c uld issue. (3e ple v. "ee) searched as set ut in the arrant, cann t be ampliied r m diied by the
icers¶ n pers nal kn ledge  the premises, r the evidence they
¯  />&  %=) adduced in supp rt  their applicati n  r the arrant. "he c ntr lling
 9t must be speciic as ar as the circumstances ill rdinarily all . subject  search arrants is the place indicated in the arrant itsel, and n t
(icr s t v. axic rp) 9t is n t required that a technical descripti n be given the place identiied by the p lice. (3e ple v. Ãrancisc )
because that  uld mean that O arrant c uld issue. (Alvarez v. CÃ9)
"yp graphical grr r in arrant is all ed i the descripti n  the place t be
A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized searched can be distinguished r m ther places, but ill n t be all ed i it is
hen: based n the hims r discreti n  the peace icer.
a.m the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill
rdinarily all , Search  a H use 2 itnesses are required t be present in the search  the
b.m r hen the descripti n expresses a c nclusi n  act n t  la by h use, unless its laul ccupants are in the premises searched.
hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search and 
seizure. .9 in a arrant  r a search  the place there is a mistake in the identiicati n
c.m r hen the things described are limited t th se, hich bear direct  the ner, the arrant is n t invalidated i it is pr perly described. (Ãrank
relati n t the ense  r hich the arrant is being issued. (Bache y v. B9 )
& C . 9nc. v. uiz)
&¯ ,+
 As t hat is t be taken, n thing is let t the discreti n  the icer -## 
executing the arrant. "hus, the speciic pr perty t be searched  r sh uld As a (#+ *+, arrants must have a name and descripti n  the
be s particularly described as t preclude any p ssibility  seizing any ther accused. "he p lice sh uld particularly describe the place t be searched and
pr perty. B ", the la d es n t require that the things t be seized must be the pers n r things t be seized henever and herever it is easible.
described in precise and minute detail as t leave n r m  r d ubt n the Warrants  r apprehensi n  unidentiied pers ns are v id, unless it c ntains
part  searching auth rities.(aallej v. CA) the best       p ssible that ill enable the icer t identiy the
accused.
 "he articles subject  the search and seizure need n t be s invariant as t
require abs lute c nc rdance beteen th se seized and th se described in the H ever, ´-# 4 # sh uld be the excepti n and n t the rule.
arrant. Substantial similarity  th se articles described as a class r species "he       must be suicient t indicate clearly the pr per
 uld suice. (Y use AlÚh ul v. CA) pers n up n h m the arrant is t be served.

/¯ ) &%,%#!$%   9t sh uld state: pers nal appearance, peculiarities, ccupati n, place 
. 9t is a suicient descripti n i icer ith the arrant can, ith reas nable residence and ther circumstances by hich he may be identiied. Having the
e rt, ascertain and identiy the place intended, and distinguish it r m ther address and the kn ing that the ne resp nsible ccupies and c ntr ls the
places in the c mmunity. building is suicient in rmati n t acquire a search arrant. (3e ple v.
ael s )
 9n the determinati n  hether a search arrant describes the premises t
be searched ith suicient particularity, it has been held "that the executing A arrant  arrest against 50  hn D es is  the nature  a general arrant
icer's pri r kn ledge as t the place intended in the arrant is relevant. clearly vi lative at least  the requirement  particularity  descripti n.
"he executing icer may l k t the aidavit in the icial c urt ile t (3angandaman v. Casar)
res lve an ambiguity in the arrant as t the place t be searched." (Burg s
Sr. v. Chie  Sta) r9#$* #/!$# !!# 

6Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 A search arrant shall n t be issued but up n pr bable cause in c nnecti n "he Bill  ights rders the abs lute exclusi n  illegally btained evidence.
ith ne speciic ense. (St nehill v. Di kn ) Secti n 3 explicitly states that illegally btained evidence ³shall be
inadmissible  r any purp se in any pr ceeding.´ Articles seized based n an
', ! & invalid arrant may n t be intr duced as evidence in c urt. ( lasc v. 3aň )
1.m Criminal Search ± requires pr bable cause. **"ake n te that this deense is purely pers nal.
Æm C nstructive Search(such as ?
    ) ± rder  r 
the pr ducti n  b ks and papers. p n m ti n  any party 9 &%#&%)#++!*+ 
sh ing g d cause and up n n tice t all ther parties, the c urt
may rder t pr duce and permit inspecti n and c pying r 1*%$# 
ph t graphing  d cuments n t privilege hich c ntain evidence 1.m Search as c nducted because  a valid arrest (i arrest arrant is
material t any matter inv lved in the acti n (aterial Distribut rs v. declared illegal r invalid, the ruit  the p is n us tree d ctrine
atividad) excludes them r m being admitted int evidence)
m Administrative search ± c nducted t imp se a regulati n r la. 2.m 9tem t be searched as ithin the arrestee¶s cust dy r area 
3r bable cause is determined acc rding t the la being immediate c ntr l (the area ithin hich the pers n arrested c uld
implemented. 9 there is n c nsent, ne sh uld get a arrant reach  r a eap n r evidence t destr y it).
(Camara v. unicipal C urt) 3.m Search as c ntemp rane us ith arrest.
 Arrest must precede that search; the pr cess cann t be reversed (alacat
vs. CA)
 ¯   ¯ gxcepti n: A search substantially c ntemp rane us ith an arrest can precede
"he PgS OÃ 3 OCgD g are mere t ls designed t acilitate the the arrest i the p lice have pr bable cause t make the arrest at the utset 
attainment  justice and that strict and rigid applicati n  rules hich  uld the search (3e ple vs. "udtud citing 68 Am.ur 2d)
result in technicalities that tend t rustrate rather than pr m te substantial
justice must alays be av ided. (aallej v. CA) Accused as searched and arrested hile transp rting   A crime as
actually being c mmitted and he as caught  ©    . "hus, a
HgCg search made up n his pers nal eects as incidental t a laul arrantless
arrest. (3e ple v. almstedt)
+%)#+  & #) %=*
"hus, in the extra rdinary events here arrant is n t necessary t eect a **  te: 3 sadas v. CA said that such an instance might n t all under ³search
valid search r seizure, r hen the latter cann t be per rmed except ith ut incidental t laul arrantless arrest.´
arrant, hat c nstitutes a reas nable r unreas nable search r seizure ** At the time the peace icers identiied themselves and apprehended the
bec mes purely a judicial questi n, determinable r m the uniqueness  the petiti ner as he tried t lee, they did n t kn  that he had c mmitted, r as
circumstances inv lved, including the purp se  the search r seizure,  actually c mmitting the ense  illegal p ssessi n  irearms and
     ©    , the manner in hich the search and ammuniti ns. "hey just suspected that he as hiding s mething in the buri
seizure as made, the place r thing searched and the character  the bag. "hey did n t kn  hat its c ntents ere. "he said circumstances did
articles pr cured. (3e ple v. CÃ9  izal) n t justiy an arrest ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. 3 sadas,  
 
     
     
A search arrant issued by a judge based n a  ©©   a 3hilippine          © ©©   ! "
C nstabulary icer h              "#
   ©© is invalid. A search arrant must n t be issued based
n mere hearsay. "he judge must n t just rehash the statements but must Warrantless search  the accused pers nal eects is valid because  the
examine them cl sely and ascertain the existence  a pr bable cause. ( an existence  pr bable cause: the smell  marijuana that emanated r m his
v. Ú nzales) plastic bag, intelligence rep rts  a Caucasian travelling n a bus smuggling
marijuana r m Sagada, and hen he as acting suspici usly and attempted
0&+* %#'*+ t lee hen asked t present his identiicati n papers during a r utine check

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

c nducted by A CO icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v. Searches and seizures ith ut arrant are valid i made up n pr bable cause,
almstedt) that is, up n a belie reas nably arising ut  circumstances kn n t the
seizing icer, that an aut m bile r ther vehicle c ntains that hich by la
A arrantless search n a petiti ner perating and selling timber hen his is subject t seizure and destructi n. (Carr ll v. nited States)
business permit as suspended by the Dg is valid because he had n right
t p ssess, sell r disp se  lumber pursuant t 3D 705. "he Dg is When it is n t practicable t secure a arrant because the vehicle can quickly
auth rized t seize his lumber. (ustang Pumber v. CA) m ve ut  the l cality r jurisdicti n in hich the arrant must be s ught,
then a search arrant is n t necessary s l ng as the seizing icer auth rity
truly believed that there is pr bable cause. (3e ple v. CÃ9  izal, 3e ple v.
59 %=*!"%)#&%#,+%#"% P H Wing)

1*%$#  "he rules g verning search and seizure  a m ving vehicle have steadily
1) 3    based n the valid arrantless arrest in hich the liberalized n the basis  practicality. "his is s c nsidering that be re a
p lice are legally present in the pursuit  their icial duty. arrant c uld be btained, the place, things and pers ns t be searched must
2) "he evidence as   
  by the p lice h have the right be described t the satisacti n  the issuing judge²a requirement hich
t be there. b rders n the imp ssible in the case  smuggling eected by the use  a
3) "he evidence must be  
   m ving vehicle that can transp rt c ntraband r m ne place t an ther ith
4) 3  $©  evidence ith ut urther search (3e ple impunity. (3e ple v. P H Wing)
vs. aaldez) (See an vs. Ú nzales)
9t is quite true the ASAC received ne such in rmati n several days r a
Aside r m a search incident t a laul arrest, a arrantless search had been eek be re the enc unter; but the act that its agents ailed t btain a
upheld in cases  m ving vehicles and the seizure  evidence in plain vie, arrant in spite  the time all ance is n t a sign that they have been remiss
as ell as the search c nducted at p lice r military checkp ints hich e in their duty. Because they lacked the necessary in rmati n (such as the
declared are n t illegal per se, and stressed that       exact time/place here the search sh uld be made), ASAC c uld n t have
   ©  ©          p ssibly secured a valid arrant even i they had  reseen its c mpelling
  $    
        ©  necessity. (3e ple v. CÃ9  izal)

     (Aniag v. C melec)
"he prevalent circumstances  the case und ubtedly bear ut the act that
An 0# %" &%*# c uld nly be res rted t i the the search in questi n as made as regards a m ving vehicle ² petiti ner's
icers c nducting the search had reas nable r pr bable cause t believe vehicle as "lagged d n" by the apprehending icers up n identiicati n.
be re the search that either the m t rist as a la ender r that they "here re, the p lice auth rities ere justiied in searching the petiti ner's
 uld ind the instrumentality r evidence pertaining t the c mmissi n  a aut m bile ith ut a arrant since the situati n demanded immediate acti n.
crime in the vehicle t be searched. "he existence  pr bable cause justiying (Asunci n v. CA)
the arrantless search is determined by the acts  each case.   
$©
      © 
      
 ©   Ãirst  all, even th ugh the p lice auth rities already identiied the petiti ner
      "he acti n then  the p licemen unreas nably as an alleged shabu dealer and c nirmed the area here he allegedly as
intruded int petiti ner's privacy and the security  his pr perty. (Aniag v. plying his illegal trade, they ere uncertain as t the time he  uld sh  up
C melec) in the vicinity. Sec ndly, they ere uncertain as t the type  vehicle
petiti ner  uld be in, taking int acc unt rep rts that petiti ner used
9 &!$"%#("%&+ dierent cars in g ing t and r m the area. Ãinally, there as pr bable cause
"he imp rtant thing is that there as pr bable cause t c nduct the as the same p lice icers had a previ us enc unter ith the petiti ner, h
arrantless search. (Caballes vs. CA) as then able t evade arrest.
 Or search is c nducted in excepti nal circumstances (i.e. checkp ints)
(aalm nte vs. de ailla) When the vehicle as p inted t them by their c nidential in rmant, ith the

6- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

in rmati n that the ccupant there  as carrying shabu, the peratives had ³mere manicurist,´ the SC held that ³"he icers  the la cann t be blamed
t act quickly. Otherise, they  uld again l se their subject h m they i they act n appearances. "here as a pers n inside h r m indicati ns
reas nably believed t be c mmitting a crime at that instance. "here  uld be as ready t accede t their request. gven rdinary c urtesy  uld preclude
n m re time  r them t secure a search them r m inquiring t cl sely as t hy she as there.´
arrant (3e ple v. Asunci n,       
 ©     ) r9* $  & . ade by a cust ms icer r ne deputized by
cust ms. "he mere act that a pers n in p ssessi n  an item, hich duties
1*%$# !&2,%#  assigned t it have O" been paid, justiies the arrantless search; the item
(1) gxistence  excepti nal circumstances is c nsidered Ú vernment 3r perty because imp rt duties have n t been paid
(2) c nducted n a ixed area ith prejudice t the Ú vernment.
(3) inspecti n limited t visual search
(4) ccupants n t subjected t physical r b dy search (caballes vs. CA)  9mp rted g ds remain under the jurisdicti n  Bureau  Cust ms as
9mp rtati n 9s n t terminated. ("ari and Cust ms C de). BOC acquires
Checkp ints need n t be ann unced because it  uld be impractical, and it exclusive jurisdicti n ver imp rted g ds,  r the purp ses  en rcement 
 uld  rearn th se h intend t vi late the ban. gven s , badges  cust ms las, r m the m ment the g ds are actually in its p ssessi n r
legitimacy  checkp ints may still be inerred r m their ixed l cati n and the c ntr l. (3apa vs. ag )
regularized manner in hich they are perated. (3e ple v. gscaň )
"he right against arrantless searches is aut matically   in acc rdance
-9 ,# %" ! %( ± there must be a right hich the pers n has ith cust ms rules and regulati ns, hich is strictly bserved in internati nal
kn ledge  and such had intenti nally relinquished practice. "he search in an airp rt is made pursuant t r utine airp rt security
pr cedure, all ed under Sec. 9  A 6235 states: ³any h lder  an airline
1*%$# !!!&%"%"!%(  ticket and his baggage are subject t search  r, and seizure , pr hibited
(1) 9t must appear that the right exists materials r substances. 3assengers reusing the search shall n t be all ed
(2) "he pers n inv lved had kn ledge, actual r c nstructive  the t b ard.´ Once searched, and  und t have illegal materials n them, a
existence  such right. pers n is caught   ©     , hich means he r she can be laully
(3) Said pers n had an actual intenti n t relinquish the right. arrested ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. Cant n)
(4) 9t must be underst d t c ver nly hat is included ithin the terms 
the language (aer y vs. Payague) ‰9 ,#)
% 2*+

 When a pers n gives his c nsent t be searched, he aives his right against ,*, !*+
arrantless searches and seizures. (3e ple v. Pacerna) (a) the general interest  eective crime preventi n and detecti n and
(b) the pressing interest  saety and selpreservati n hich permit the
"he apprehending icers even s ught the permissi n  petiti ner t search icer t take steps t assure himsel that the pers n is n t armed that may
the car, t hich the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu as disc vered be used against him. (alacat v. CA)
by virtue  a valid arrantless search and the petiti ner himsel reely gave
his c nsent t said search, the pr hibited drugs  und as a result ere ' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable searches and seizures is n t
admissible in evidence. (Asunci n v. CA) vi lated hen a p lice icer st ps a suspect n the street and searches him
ith ut pr bable cause t arrest, i the p lice icer has a reas nable
"he right against arrantless searches and seizures is a purely pers nal right, suspici n that the pers n has c mmitted, is c mmitting, r is ab ut t c mmit
as such, n b dy else sh uld be able t aive the right  r the accused. a crime.

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

6r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

and articulable acts.´ in rmal disciplinary pr cedures needed. (aer nia Sch Dist. a. Act n; B ard 
gducati n v. garls: in justiying the reas nableness  arrantless drug tests
While pr bable cause is n t required t c nduct a "st p and risk," it in public sch ls)
nevertheless h lds that mere suspici n r a hunch ill n t validate a "st p and
risk." A (#*%# # must exist, in light  the p lice icer's    $)'!#(!*+ %=*
     , t arrant the belie that the pers n detained has Art 3, sec 2 pr tects n t nly th se h appear t be inn cent but als th se
eap ns c ncealed ab ut him. ("erry v. Ohi , cited in alacat v. CA) h appear t be guilty but are nevertheless presumed inn cent until the
c ntrary is pr ved. (H3 Úarments v. CA)
ule  r St p and Ãrisk: 
1.m 3 lice icer bserves      9n the case at bar, the seizure as made ith ut any arrant. "he evidence
2.m      that the pers n is engaged in s me type  did n t justiy the arrantless search and seizure  the resp ndent¶s g ds.
criminal activity. "he petiti ners and the raiding party had en ugh time t apply  r a judicial
m 9 ©© as a p liceman up n appr ach. arrant but they did n t d s , and thus t k thus t k the risk  a suit  r
%m akes    & damages. "here as n pr bable cause  r the seizure. "he ant nness  the
'm   ©   r his n r thers saety r ngul seizure justiies the aard  exemplary damages. (H3 Úarments v.
CA)
**"he petiti ner as acting suspici usly, and hen the 93 icers
appr ached him and identiied themselves, the accused tried t lee ith his & #) %=* :!"#*#)!",*, ;
buri bag, there as ,//+&*  that he as c ncealing s mething illegal When an rder is issued in virtue  the pr visi ns  ule 21, it pertains t a
in the bag and it as the right and duty  the p lice icers t inspect the civil pr cedure hich cann t be identiied r c nused ith the unreas nable
same. (3 sadas v. CA) searches pr hibited by the C nstituti n.

?9 0%(# #) $(#&' &%&*$ #& ± urgency and exigency  the But in the err ne us hyp thesis that the pr ducti n and inspecti n  b ks
m ment dispenses the need  r arrants and d cuments  a c mpany rdered by the C urt is tantam unt t a search
arrant, the pr cedure utlined by ule 21 and  ll ed by a judge place
@9A#A * ,%&%#+ )*(  them  the realm  the pr hibited unreas nable searches.
Sec. 36  A 9165 and its implementing rules and regulati ns (9 ), as
c uched, c ntain pr visi ns speciically directed t ards preventing a situati n 9 a party in a case has interest in the b ks and d cuments in questi n, then
that  uld unduly embarrass the empl yees r place them under a humiliating it means that they are material and imp rtant t the issues  the case, and
experience. While every icer and empl yee in a private establishment is that justice ill be better served i all the acts pertinent t the c ntr versy
under the la deemed  rearned that he r she may be a p ssible subject  are placed be re the trial c urt. (aterial Distribut rs v. atividad)
a drug test, n b dy is really singled ut in advance  r drug testing. "he
rand m drug testing shall be undertaken under c nditi ns calculated t ?
  
pr tect as much as p ssible the empl yee's privacy and dignity. "he intrusi n "he right against unreas nable searches and seizure guards against abuse
int the empl yees' privacy, under A 9165, is acc mpanied by pr per nly by ay  t much indeiniteness r breadth in the things required t be
saeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages  test results, and is ³particularly described;´ i the inquiry is ne the demanding agency
relatively minimal. (C ngress/Admin. B dy) is auth rized by la t make and the materials
speciied are relevant, the gist  the pr tecti n being the requirement that
**"he pr bablecause standard is peculiarly related t criminal investigati ns the discl sure s ught shall n t be unreas nable.
and may be unsuited t determining the reas nableness  administrative
searches here the Ú vernment seeks t prevent the devel pment  "he requirement  ³pr bable cause supp rted by ath r airmati n,´ literally
hazard us c nditi ns. "he American C urt has held that a arrant and inding applicable in case  a arrant, is satisied in case  an ³Order  r 3r ducti n
 pr bable cause are unnecessary in the public sch l c ntext because such (Subp ena Duces "ecum) by the C urt¶s determinati n that the investigati n
requirements  uld unduly interere ith the maintenance  the sit and is auth rized by C ngress  r a purp se it can rder, and that the d cuments

6‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

s ught are relevant t the inquiry. (Oklah ma 3ress v. Walling)  udge l ks 9nt the certiicati n
(must include aidavits)
¯     udge pers nally examines the
3r bable cause up n the basis  hich arrants are t be issued  r area rec rds
c de en rcement inspecti ns is n t dependent n the inspect rs belie that a udge is n t b und bythe Ãiscal's
particular delling vi lates the elements  the c de, but n the determinati n.
reas nableness  the en rcement agency¶s appraisal  c nditi ns in the area 
as a h le. 9n n nemergency situati ns, a pers n has the right t insist that 
the inspect rs btain a search arrant. (Camara v. unicipal C urt) +%)#+ ¯ 
#
+(#+%&
 An ense is c mmitted in the presence r ithin the vie  an icer,
hen the icer SggS the ense, alth ugh at a distance, r HgA S the

 3
3¯   disturbances created thereby and 3 OCggDgD A" OCg t the scene there 
 ( S vs. Sam nte)
0&,%#9 arrest is reas nable
9 9 Buybust perati n/ gntrapment perati ns ± ©    
%# %*# C ntinuing crime ± ©    
 m aalidity  arrest may be challenged be re he enters his plea. "he
equirements: ule 113, Sec 5 ules  C urt: accused may m ve t quash the in rmati n be re arraignment.
(1) 9ssued up n pr bable cause (a) When in his presence, the pers n
(2) 3ers nally examined by the judge t bearrested has c mmitted, 9s #%#*%#( !!#  . Subversi n being a c ntinuing ense, the arrest 
(3) gxamined under ath and actually c mmitting, r attemptingt the accused ith ut a arrant is justiied as it can be said that he as
airmati n c mmit an ense (in lagrante c mmitting an ense hen arrested. "he crimes  rebelli n, subversi n,
(4) 3articularly describing the place delict ); c nspiracy r pr p sal t c mmit such crimes in urtherance there  r in
t be searched and the pers ns r c nnecti n thereith c nstitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
things t be seized. (Secti n 2, (b) When an ense has in act been nature  c ntinuing crimes. AS such, there is n need  r a arrant in rder
Article999) c mmitted and he has   t make an arrest  r th se c mmitting such crimes. ( mil v. am s)
(5) arrant must n t be  r m re     acts 9ndicating that the
than ne ense ( evised ules  pers n t bearrested has c mmitted  "he C urt d es n t believe that the arrantless arrest  Ú alls ithin the
C urt) it; terms  laul arrantless arrest  Sec. 5(a): ³When 9 H9S 3 gSgCg, the
pers n t be arrested has c mmitted, is actually c mmitting, r is attempting
 Ãiscal (judge pers nally (c) When the pers n t be arrested is t c mmit an ense.´ His arrest t k place 6 days ater the sh ting. either
investigates) a pris ner h hasescaped r m a c uld the arrest be reas nably regarded as eected ³When in act just been
 unicipal trial c urt penal establishment r place here c mmitted.´  re ver    d es O" apply because urder is O"
 unicipal circuit trial c urt he is:  Serving inal judgment a c ntinuing crime. (Ú v. CA)
etr p litan circuit c urt (n n C) r
 "emp rarily c nined hile case  3ar. (a) requires that the pers n be arrested: (1) ater he has c mmitted r
With Ãiscal, (judge l ks int ispending, r hile he is actually c mmitting r at least attempting t c mmit an ense,
certiicati n and examines the  gscaped hile being transerred (2) in the presence  the arresting icer.
rec rds) r m nec ninement t an ther.
3r cess: "hese requirements have n t been established in the case at bar. At the time
 Ãiscal makes a determinati n   the arrest, accusedappellant as merely ³l king r m side t side´ and
pr bable cause (called "certiicati n") ³h lding his abd men,´ acc rding t the arresting icers themselves. "here
as apparently n ense that had just been c mmitted, r as being

6  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

actually c mmitted r at least being attempted in their presence. With ut the arraignment. Ú as persistent n his right t preliminary investigati n
evidence  the irearm taken r m accused at the time  his illegal arrest the BgÃO g his arraignment (Ú v. CA)
pr secuti n l st its m st imp rtant exhibit and must there re ail. (3e ple v.
eng te) 
*%!% #* &%##)
  *+
 "he arrest as d ne hile accused as simply descending the gangplank 
 #+B#+)( a ship, ith n utard indicati n that called  r his arrest. He is O"
.One  the C nstituti nal requirements  r a valid search arrant r arrant c mmitting a crime, n r ab ut t d s , n r just c mmitted ne. "here re
 arrest is that it must be based n pr bable cause. "he existence  pr bable this d esn¶t all under the excepti ns stated in ule 113  the ules  C urt.
cause justiies the arrest and seizure ith ut arrant. "his c nstitutes 
³pers nal kn ledge´ under ule 113  the ules  Criminal 3r cedure. "he evidence is inadmissible because the search as O" an incident  a
laul arrest because there as O arrant  arrest and the arrantless
"hat petiti ners ere n t ³caught in the act´ d es n t make the arrest illegal. arrest didn¶t all under the excepti ns under ule 113  the ules  C urt. 9
3etiti ners ere  und ith y ung b ys in their respective r ms, in s me a peace icer has at least 2 days t pr cure a Search/Arrest arrant ith the
cases naked. nder the circumstances, the C9D agents had reas nable name, descripti n  the pers n t be arrested r the place t be searched, he
gr unds t believe that petiti ners had c mmitted ped philia. (Harvey v. cann t just make a arrantless arrest r search. (3e ple v. Amminudin)
Deens rSantiag )
 "he accused as arrested n the s le basis  in rmati n r m a verbal
 9n the case at bar, p lice bserved during their surveillance that the rep rt, hich d es n t all under the excepti ns stated in ules 113. "here is
petiti ner, having red eyes and  bbling, as he alked near the Kal kan City O such pers nal kn ledge in this case. "he verbal rep rt led the auth rities
Cemetery, hich acc rding t their in rmati n as a hang ut  drug addicts. t suspect that the accused had c mmitted a crime. "hey ere still ishing  r
Acc rding t their experience, this suspici us behavi r as characteristic  evidence  a crime n t yet ascertained. "he subsequent rec very  the
drug addicts n a ³high.´ "he p lice there re had reas n t investigate him. subject irearm n the basis  in rmati n r m the lips  a rightened ie
"hey appr ached the petiti ner, identiied themselves as p lice, and asked cann t make the arrest laul.
hat he as h lding. When he resisted they asked him again. 9t as nly then
hen he all ed the examinati n  his allet here the alleged marijuana 9 an arrest ith ut a arrant is unlaul at the time it as made, generally
as  und. n thing that happened r as disc vered aterards can make it laul. "he
ruit  a p is n us tree is necessarily als tainted. "he C nstituti n itsel
 9llegality  arrest may be cured hen accused v luntarily submitted t mandates that any evidence btained in vi lati n  the right is inadmissible in
the jurisdicti n  the c urt by pleading n t guilty  &  the evidence. C nsequently, testim nies  the arresting icers as t the
illegality  his arrest. (3e ple vs. gsc rdial) admissi ns made by the appellant cann t be used against him. (3e ple v.
Burg s)
 3etiti ner eectively aived the inadmissibility  evidence illegally btained 
hen he ailed t raise the issue during trial. 9ssues n t raised during trial 
cann t be pleaded  r the irst time n appeal. (analili v. CA)  
89  ¯
  33¯  ¯     ¯ 
!!&! /%+. 9 ne p sts bail, ne is   r m questi ning deects   ¯7 ¯
  
     
ne¶s arrest (aelasc v. CA)  ¯
          ¯    
¯
 "he iling  the petiti ners  a petiti n t be released n bail sh uld be 859 ¯  ¯   ¯ 
      
c nsidered as a aiver  any irregularity attending their arrest and        ¯¯3 
 ¯  
them r m questi ning its validity. (Harvey v. Deens rSantiag ) ¯  

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

6ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

2. When 3ublic Saety r Order requires it as prescribed by la. relati nship beteen the individual and the State. 9ts c ncern is n t the
relati n beteen individuals, beteen a private individual and ther private
¯0&+* %#' *+ individuals. What the Bill  ights d es is declare s me  rbidden z nes in the
m Bars admissi n  illegally btained evidence. private sphere inaccessible t any p er h lder.´ ±Ãr. Bernas during the
C nstituti nal C mmissi n.
estraint against unlaul searches and seizures applies nly against the
g vernment but n t n private individuals. 9 the evidence s ught t be O"g: 9 the search is made up n the request  la en rcers, a arrant
excluded as primarily disc vered and btained by a private pers n, acting in must irst generally be secured i it is t pass the test  c nstituti nality.
a private capacity and ith ut participati n/interventi n  State auth rities, H ever, i the search is made at the behest r the initiative  the pr priet r
then the liberties guaranteed by the C nstituti n cann t be inv ked against  a private establishment  r its n private purp ses, ith ut the
the State. interventi n  p lice auth rities, the right against unreas nable search and
"est: seizure cann t be inv ked,  r nly the act  the private individual and n t
1.m gvidence primarily disc vered and btained by private pers n the la en rcers are inv lved.
(subsequent veriicati n  evidence by State auth rities up n
request  private individual is all ed). %(%"&'%#$ ! *%#!%#(%#(##)%"%)*+
2.m 3rivate pers n acted in private capacity. "he right t privacy d es n t bar all incursi ns int individual privacy. "he
3.m  interventi n and participati n by the State auth rities in primary right merely requires that the la be narr ly  cused and a c mpelling
disc very.(3e ple v. arti) interest justiies such intrusi ns. 9ntrusi ns int the right must be
 acc mpanied by pr per saeguards and elldeined standards t prevent
"he 9ntimacies beteen husband and ie d n t justiy any ne  them unc nstituti nal invasi ns. Any la r rder that invades individual privacy ill
breaking the draers and cabinets  the ther and in ransacking them  r be subjected by the udiciary t strict certainty.
telltale evidence  marital inidelity. A pers n, by c ntracting marriage d es
n t shed his/her right t privacy as an 9ndividual. "he evidence seized by the equisites  r a Pa t intrude up n privacy  an 9ndividual:
ie sh uld be returned t the husband, as it as taken ith ut his kn ledge 1.m Pa is narr ly  cused
and c nsent. (Zulueta v. CA) 2.m A c mpelling interest justiies intrusi n
 3.m 3r per saeguards
¯#%.%,,%#( 4.m Welldeined standards
m A 4200 requires previ usly ritten judicial auth rizati n t be issued (Ople v. " rres and K v. gDA)
up n ulillment  requirements  r the issuance  a arrant eective  r
nly 60 days. ¯ 
   *#) &5#)

%"&'!$$*#%&%#%()+,##" %#  ++(+  %#!
%$ ."he C nstituti nal 9mmunity r m
nauth rized tape rec rdings  teleph ne c nversati ns are n t admissible as unreas nable searches and seizures, being a pers nal ne, cann t be aived
evidence. Absent a clear sh ing that b th parties t the teleph ne by any ne except the pers n h se rights are invaded r ne h is
c nversati n all ed the rec rdings  the same, the inadmissibility  the expressly auth rized t d s in his r her behal.
subject tapes is mandat ry under A 4200 (AntiWiretapping Pa). "ape
rec rdings can nly be made up n laul rder  the C urt. ec rds sh  that the appellant as n t at the h use at the time his alleged
helper, all ed the auth rities t enter it. We ind n evidence that  uld
%/%%# establish the act that Puz  rad s as indeed the appellant¶s helper, r i she
m  t abs lute. "he state may inringe such by applying  r a previ us as the helper, that the appellant had given her auth rity t pen his h use in
judicial auth rizati n in cases  nati nal security r n njudicially hen his absence. (3e ple v. Damas )
required by public saety, public rder r therise prescribed by la. 
"he case d es n t all ithin the excepti ns t arrantless search.
3urp se: 3r tecti n against the State. ³"he Bill  ights g verns the "he reas n  r searching the h use  herein petiti ners is that it as

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

rep rtedly being used as a hide ut and recruitment center  r rebel s ldiers. 3"%#  %,& . ncriminal pr cess, hich requires the pri r
3ermissi n as indeed granted by a. Puisa aer y t enter the h use but nly submissi n  a ilm t a cens r, av ids c nstituti nal inirmity nly i it takes
t ascertain the presence  rebel s ldiers. place under pr cedural saeguards designed t bviate the dangers  a
cens rship system.
nder the circumstances it is undeniable that the p lice icers had ample
time t pr cure a search arrant but did n t. "he articles seized, having been S"ADA D ÃO CgSO SH93 "O Bg aAP9D: BÃ3
c niscated illegally, are pr tected by the exclusi nary principle and cann t be 1.m "he /*)#!,"%#( that the ilm is unpr tected expressi n must
used as evidence against the petiti ners in the criminal acti n against them rest n the cens r.
 r illegal p ssessi n  irearms. (Sps. aer y v. Payague) 2.m While the State may require advance submissi n  all ilms, in rder
t pr ceed eectively t bar all sh ings  unpr tected ilms, the
  - ¯ ¯¯ ¯    
 3
 requirement cann t be administered in a manner hich  uld lend
 
 7    
          
   an eect  !%#+%' t the cens r's determinati n hether a ilm
    ¯¯ ¯ 3 ¯      3 c nstitutes a pr tected expressi n because nly a judicial

   
 ¯  determinati n in an adversary pr ceeding ensures the necessary
 sensitivity t reed m  expressi n nly a pr cedure requiring a
¯%  %# judicial determinati n suices t imp se a valid inal restraint.
m Oicial g vernmental restricti ns n the press r ther  rms  3.m "he pr cedure must als assure a ,$, inal judicial decisi n t
expressi n in advance  actual publicati n r disseminati n like licensing minimize the deterrent eect  an interim and p ssibly err ne us
r cens rship. denial  a license.
 Cens rship r pri r restraint is d ne by suppressing publicati n and
punishing as c ntempt urther publicati n. 9n determining the extent   "he B ards  evie  r  ving 3ictures and "elevisi n has the p er t
c nstituti nal pr tecti n, it has been generally, 9 n t universally c nsidered screen revie and examine all televisi n pr grams. "he exercise  religi us
that it is the chie purp se  the guaranty  reed m  press is t prevent reed m can be regulated by the state hen it ill bring ab ut the clear and
previ us restraints  publicati n. (ear v. innes ta) present danger  s me substantial evil, hich the state is duty b und t
prevent. H ever, there is n sh ing  the type  harm the tapes ill
0$,+  bring. 3ri r restraint n speech cann t be justiied by hyp thetical ears but
1.m system  licensing administered by an executive icer nly by the sh ing  a S BS"A"9ag and 99g" ga9P. (9C v. CA)
2.m m vie cens rship  vies are vehicle n t just  r entertainment
but als  r c mmunicati n
3.m judicial pri r restraint in the  rm  an injuncti n rder
)$! ."he press is n t exempt r m the taxing p ers 
the state, the la granted the press a privilege, they c uld take back such a
"he pri r restraint principle is n t an unbending rule but admitted excepti ns privilege any time. 9n ithdraing the privilege, the la merely subjects the
such as: WO9 press t the same tax burden t hich ther businesses have ling ag been
1.m hen a nati n is at , publicati n hich may bstruct g vernment subjected, "he aA" is n t a license tax and there re, n t a  rm  pri r
recruitment restraint. 9t is n t a tax n the exercise i the privilege, much less a
2.m publicati n  / &#$%+ c nstituti nal right. (" lentin v. Sec. O Ãinance)
3.m materials %#&%%#( t acts  vi lence t verthr  the g vernment
Als : sediti us speech, cens rship, elect ral pr cess &"(!%$%#+%+
Ãreed m  press and right t public in rmati n versus rights  the accused
 *$,%#!#"+%)%'.Any system  pri r restraints  expressi n versus p er  c urt t c ntr l pr ceedings the rights  the accused must
bears a heavy presumpti n against its c nstituti nal validity. "he Ú vernment prevail, there re, it may be pr hibited
thus carries the burden  sh ing justiicati n  r the en rcement  such
restraint. (Y "imes v. S)  */ 1*#*#% $#
m "here are limits t the p er  the g vernment t imp se rules r

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

regulati ns penalizing the exercise  the right  reed m  expressi n


%(,%"&'  seeks t pr tect pe ple r m unarranted intrusi ns and
  ! */ 1*#*#% $# r ngul publicati n  the private aairs and activities  individuals hich
#(*  #)#&' *+ ±hen it creates a danger us tendency, hich are utside the sphere  legitimate public c ncern.
the state has the right t prevent. "here must be a rati nal c nnecti n
beteen the speech and evil apprehended ex. 3e ple v. 3erez (inciting t  ,&#)+&+& 
sediti n)  3
Mm Ãear must be  r seri us evil that is seri us, imminent and high "he COgPgC has O" been granted the right t supervise and regulate the
pr bability  seri us injury t the state exercise by media practiti ners themselves  their right t expressi n during
plebiscite peri ds. "here are n candidates inv lved in a plebiscite, there re
 "he attack n Ú vern rÚeneral W d exceeds the b unds  ree speech the evil s ught t be prevented in an electi n is n t present in a plebiscite.
and c mm n decency. "here as a sediti us tendency, hich c uld easily (Sanidad v. COgPgC)
pr duce disaecti n am ng the pe ple. "his case is an example  the
applicati n  the danger us tendency rule here all it requires,  r speech t  CA regulate time in br adcast media and space in papers, it d es n t
be punishable is that there is a rati nal c nnecti n beteen speech and evil vi late reed m  expressi n. "he general elare is aected here, public
apprehended. (3e ple v. 3erez) interest demands that they kn  their candidates. Als it  uld perate  r
a limited peri d nly.
+#) ##( *+± 9n determining hether a circumstance  gquality  pp rtunity t pr er nesel  r public ice is als clearly an
 uld c nstitute clear and present danger, the c urt must inquire hether in imp rtant value. "here re, n presumpti n  invalidity arises ith respect t
each case the gravity  the evil, disc unted by its impr bability, justiies an exercises  supervis ry r regulat ry auth rity n the part  the COgPgC
invasi n  ree speech t av id the danger.  r purp ses  securing equal pp rtunity am ng candidates  r p litical
 "he questi n in every case is hether the  rds used are used in such ice, alth ugh such may result in  limitati n  the rights  ree speech
circumstances and are  such nature as t create a clear and present danger and ree press. (ati nal 3ress Club v. COgPgC)
that they ill bring ab ut the substantive evils that C ngress has a right t
prevent. 9t is a questi n  pr ximity and degree. $,%(# %&2 ."he p sting  decals and stickers in m bile places like
 Clear and present danger is n t dependent n the pr bability  success  cars and ther m ving vehicles d es n t endanger any substantial
attempted verthr  (Dennis v. S) g vernment interest. "here is n clear public interest threatened by such
activity s as t justiy the curtailment  the citizen's right  ree speech and
 All  rms  c mmunicati n are entitled t the br ad pr tecti n  the expressi n.  re ver, the reed m  expressi n curtailed by the questi ned
reed m  expressi n clause. ecessarily, h ever, the reed m  televisi n pr hibiti n is n t s much that  the candidate r the p litical party. "he
and radi br adcasting is s mehat lesser in sc pe than the reed m pr visi n 9s s br ad that it enc mpasses even the private Citizen's private
acc rded t nespaper and print media due t its verhelming reach and pr perty and the reed m t c nvince thers t agree ith him. (Adi ng v.
inluence. "he clear and present danger test, there re, must take the COgPgC)
particular circumstances  br adcast media int acc unt. "he g vernment has
a right t be pr tected against br adcasts, hich incite the listeners t  What is inv lved here is simply a regulati n  time, place and manner. Any
vi lently verthr  it. (gastern Br adcasting v. Dans) restricti n  speech is nly incidental and it is n m re than necessary t
achieve the purp se  pr m ting equality  pp rtunity. What makes this
+#&%#( ! #  ± it is the c urts uncti n t balance public interest regulati n reas nable is that it applies nly t the electi n peri d. Ã r c ntent
and the reed ms aected by it, and t arrive at a judgment here the neutral restricti ns such as the case at bar, the O'Brien test must be used.
greater eight shall be placed. i.e. A4880 limiting peri d  partisan p litics
 3r ves that c nstituti nal reed ms are n t abs lute hen there is a  C%#  pr vides that a Ú vernment regulati n  time, space and
substantial interest manner (c ntentneutral regulati n) is suiciently justiied i: WÃ 
 sually used n t t prevent evil r danger a.m 9 it is %%# the c nstituti nal p er  the Ú vernment,
m gxcepti ns: c ntempt libel, bscenity and sediti us speech b.m 9 it !* an imp rtant r substantial g vernmental

Æ6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

interest ree speech. While said signs are subject t the municipality's p lice p er,
c.m 9 the g vernmental interest is *#+) t the suppressi n any regulati n may be challenged n the gr und that it restricts t little
 ree expressi n speech because its exempti ns discriminate n the basis  Sign's message r
d.m And i the incident  %&%# n alleged Ãirst Amendment n the gr und that it pr hibits t much pr tected speech.
reed ms is n greater than is essential t the urtherance   "he rdinance cann t be justiied as time, place manner restricti n since
that interest. handbills and nespaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes  r
imp rtant medium such as the p sters that ere pr hibited by Padue's
 estricti ns that are c ntentneutral are n t cens rial. "he restricti n is n t rdinance. (City  Padue v. Úille )
c ncerned ith the c ntent  the speech thus, it needs nly a substantial 
g vernmental interest t supp rt them. (Osmena v. COgPgC) #,&) ,&
± a pubic and malici us imputati n  a crime, vice r deect, real
7   rand m p lling  v ters as they c me ut  the b ths, and r imaginary r any act, missi n, c nditi n status r circumstance tending t
the disseminati n  their results thr ugh mass media cann t be banned by cause the dish n r, discredit r c ntempt  a pers n r t blacken the
COgPgC, they argue that it might c nuse the v ters. But it d es n t all mem ry  ne h is dead.
under clear and present danger. "he evil t be prevented is merely glements: A39
speculative. (ABS CB v. COgPgC) a. "he ++(%#  a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning an ther
b. */+%&%#  the charge making the deamat ry matter, ater it has
    ± a ban n surveys published 15days be re electi ns been ritten, kn n t s me ne ther than the pers n t h m it has
 r nati nal candidates and 7days be re electi ns  r l cal candidates is a been ritten.
direct and t tal suppressi n  reed m  expressi n am unting t pri r c. )#%'  the pers n deamed
restraint. "he g vernmental interest s ught t be pr m ted can be achieved d. gxistence  $+%&  hen the auth r  the imputati n is pr mpted
by ther means. (SWS v. COgPgC) by illill r spite and speaks n t in resp nse t duty but merely t injure
 reputati n.
$$&%+ ,&
 C mmunicati n h se s le purp se is t pr p se a c mmercial transacti n. 3rivileged C mmunicati ns every deamat ry act is presumed malici us
gx: Ads  g ds r services except in the  ll ing cases:
 9t $* #/alse, misleading r illegal. (Ãriedman v. gers), r pr p se 1.m %" C mmunicati n made by any pers n t an ther in the
any illegal activity (3ittsburgh 3ress v. Human elati ns C mmissi n) per rmance  a legal, s cial r m ral duty.
 D es n t enj y the same pr tecti n as c re speech (c mmunicates p litical, 2.m Ãair and true ,, made in g d aith, ith ut c mments,
religi us and s cial ideas) remarks  any juridical, legislative, r ther icial pr ceeding  
  ©   r  any statement, rep rt r speech delivered in
gven truthul and laul c mmercial speech may be regulated i they ulill the said pr ceedings. Or any ther & per rmed by public icers in the
. requirements  *) # SDO exercise  their uncti ns.
1.m "he g vernmental interest s ught t be served by the regulati n equisites: 3AÚ
must be */ #%+ 1.m "he , # h made the c mmunicati n has a legal, m ral r
2.m "he regulati n must be )%&+')"#& the g vernment's interest s cial duty t make the c mmunicati n, r had an interest t pr tect.
3.m "he regulati n must n t be "/) ( ubin v. C rs Breing) 2.m "he c mmunicati n is )) )t an icer r a b ard, r superi r
having an interest in the matter, h has the p er t urnish the
 "he city's nes rack p licy is neither c ntent neutral n r, "narr ly tail red." pr tecti ns s ught.
"hus, regardless  hether r n t it leaves pen ample alternative channels 3.m Statements are made in ()!%and c mmunicated / malice.
 c mmunicati n, it cann t be justiied as a legitimate time, place, r manner
restricti n n pr tected speech. (Cincinnati v. Disc very et rk) *!%/+."he la against libel is pr tective  reputati n acc rding t
c mmunity standards and n t acc rding t amily r pers nal standards
 "he rdinance pr hibiting the placing  signs vi lates the residents' right t (Bulletin 3ublishing C rp. v.  el)

ÆÆ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 justice. Ãreed m  expressi n itsel can be secured nly ithin the c ntext 
 Ã r liability t arise ith ut ending the press reed m, the test t meet is a uncti ning and rderly system  dispensing justice. (9n re urad 
WO the statements ere made ith C&*+$+%&C ie. kn ledge that it C rrupti n in the udiciary)
as alse r ith reckless disregard  hether it as alse r n t (Y times v.
Sullivan).  A publicati n relating t judicial acti n in a pending case hich tends t
*)#!"%#(3+%&.lies n the plainti (B rjal v. CA) impede embarrass r bstruct the c urt and c nstitutes a clear and present
danger t the administrati n  justice is n t pr tected by the guarantee 
 espaper may publish nes items relative t udicial, legislative r ther press reed m and is punishable as c ntempt.
icial pr ceedings, hich are n t  c nidential nature, because the public is " c nstitute &#$,, the publicati n must have been made under the
entitled t kn  the truth ith respect t such pr ceedings, hich, being circumstance as  uld be calculated t imperil the air and rderly uncti ning
icial and n n c nidential, are pen t public c nsumpti n. But, t enj y  the judicial pr cess, n t rem tely r pr bably, but immediately, and it must
immunity, a publicati n c ntaining der gat ry in rmati n must be n t nly c nstitute a clear and resent danger t the administrati n  justice hich
true, but, als , air, and. 9t must be made in g d aith and ith ut any danger must be 'seri us and substantial. (in re urad  gnrile v. Salazar)
c mments r remarks. Omissi ns in the nespaper rep rt, is libel by
negligence. %/+!%"#)%"%)*+  A publisher  deamat ry alseh ds ab ut an
 9 the publisher is unaare, hen under the acts the truth c uld have been individual h is neither a public icial n r a public igure may n t claim the
veriied, the publisher is guilty  negligence and as liable  r libel. e Y rk "imes pr tecti n against liability  r deamati n. edia deamati n
(3 licarpi v. anila "imes)  private pers ns henever an issue  general r public interest is inv lved
 uld be unair because private individuals characteristically have less
%/+!*/+%& !!%&%+ #)*/+%&
%(* eective pp rtunities  r rebuttal than public icials and public igures. e
 "he c nstituti nal guarantee pr hibits a public icial r m rec vering Y rk "imes standard is inapplicable t private individuals. (Úertz v. Welch)
damages  r a deamat ry alseh d relating t his icial c nduct unless he
pr ves that the statement as made ith actual malice. (S"ADA D: Bars %$ &%#,,+%)%#%+%,,%#-*% ,*)#&
media liability  r deamati n  a public icial absent pr  that the .An allegati n is c nsidered deamat ry 9 it ascribes t a pers n the
deamat ry statements ere published ith kn ledge  their alsity r in c mmissi n  a crime hich tends t dish n r r discredit r put him in
reckless disregard  the truth) (Y "imes v. Sullivan) c ntempt, r hich tends t blacken the mem ry  ne h is dead.
"he 1*% % !+%/+ are:
 "he pr tecti n given t all debate and c mmunicati n inv lving matters  a.m the allegati n  a discreditable act r c nditi n c ncerning
public r general c ncern is extended ith ut regard t hether the pers ns an ther;
inv lved are am us r an nym us, but the c mmitment t r bust debate n b.m publicati n  the charge
public issues cann t be displaced. ( senbl m v. etr media) c.m identity  the pers n deamed; and
d.m existence  malice.
 "he State's interest in pr tecting public igures r m em ti nal distress is n t  "he 3C pr vides that i the deamat ry statement is made against a public
suicient t deny C nstituti nal pr tecti n t speech that c uld n t reas nably icial ith respect t the discharge  his icial duties and uncti ns and the
have been interpreted as stating actual acts ab ut the public igure inv lved. truth  the allegati n is sh n, the accused ill be entitled t an acquittal.
"he rule in "9gS case is extended t 3 9aA"gSgC"O 3 BP9C Ã9Ú gS (e.g. (aasquez v. CA)
nescaster, p litical analyst etc). (Hustler agazine v. Ãalell)
 9t is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identiiable alth ugh it is n t
0&,%#(#+*+,*/+%& !!%&%+ ,%/%)!$ necessary that he be named. 9t is als n t suicient that the ended party
&"%#($( *#+ %/,"#% &*+$+%& rec gnized himsel as the pers n attacked but it must be sh n that at least a
 Ãreed m  speech and  expressi n is n t abs lute and that reed m needs third pers n c uld identiy him as the bject  the libel us publicati n. (B rjal
n ccasi n t be adjusted t and acc mm dated ith the requirements  v. CA)
equally imp rtant pubic interest. One  the undamental pubic interests is the
maintenance  the integrity and rderly uncti ning  the administrati n   "he petiti ner's act  distributing c pies  an article r m "he 9nquirer

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

stating that grat charges ere iled against udge Sidr cann t be c nsidered t arrant State intererence and acti n. (3ita v. CA)
as malici us. (aicari v. CA)
"he C urt  und that 9ndiana's public indecency statute is justiied despite its
 "he c urt held that the statements emb died in the advertisement and the incidental limitati ns n s me expressive activity.
penletter are pr tected by the c nstituti nal right  reed m  speech. "he Applying O'Brien:
advertisement stating that a 3CÚÚ C mmissi ner c mmitted illegal and 1.m "he traditi nal p lice p er  the State is deined as the auth rity t
unauth rized acts hich c nstitute grat and c rrupti n as held by the c urt pr vide  r the public health, saety and m rals. "he statute relected
t be a vehicle in rming the public and the st ckh lders  the g ings n in m ral disappr val  pe ple appearing in the nude am ng strangers
the business  rld. (aland ni v. Dril n) in public places.
2.m "he public indecency statute urthers a substantial g vernment
  interest in pr tecting rder and m rality
/ &#%' #) #)&#&' ± s mething ensive t chastity, decency r 3.m What 9ndiana pr hibited as n t dancing as a c mmunicative
delicacy. element but simply its being d ne in the nude.
 4.m 9ndiana's requirement that the dancers ear at least pasties and a g
9n  %#(!/ &#%', the basic guidelines  r the tier  acts must be: string is m dest and the bare minimum necessary t achieve the
39SDPa State's purp se. (Barnes v. Úlenn "heatre)
(1) Whether the average pers n, applying c ntemp rary c mmunity standards
 uld ind that the  rk, taken as a h le, appeals t the ,*%#%# , / &#%'# )%.Stricter rules n bscenity must be  ll ed especially
c mmunity standards standards  a speciic c mmunity, hich d because  its pervasive quality and the interest in the pr tecti n  children.
n t really vary r m ther c mmunities. "he pr hibiti n against cens rship denies the C mmissi n p er t edit
(2) Whether the  rk depicts r describes, in a patently ensive ay, sexual pr p sed pr grams in advance and t excise material c nsidered
c nduct ,&%!%&++')!%#) by the applicable state la, and inappr priate. HOWgag , the pr hibiti n has never been c nstrued t deny
(3) Whether the  rk, taken as a h le +&2 seri us literary, artistic, the c mmissi n the p er t "% the c ntent  CO3Pg"gD br adcasts in
p litical r scientiic "+*. (iller v. Cali rnia) the per rmance  its regulat ry p ers. "he c mmissi n has the right t
take n t  past pr gram c ntent hen c nsidering a licensee's reneal
 Obscene material is that hich deals ith sex in a manner appealing t applicati n. (ÃCC v. 3aciica à undati n)
prurient interest. What is seen r perceived by an artist is entitled t respect,
unless there is a sh ing that the pr duct  his talent rightully may be 6#%#(+(% +%#. dealing ith adult entertainment that d es n t ban adult
c nsidered bscene. "his ruling h ever, is limited t m ti n pictures. A less theaters alt gether is n t invalid being pr perly analyzed as a  rm  time,
liberal appr ach is given  r televisi n since every ne; including children have place and manner  regulati n. "C ntentneutral time, place and manner
easier access t televisi n. (Ú nzalez v. KalaKatigbak) regulati ns are acceptable s l ng as they are designed t serve a substantial
g vernment interest an d n t unreas nably limit alternative avenues 
 " bar the exercise  the right, there must be a clear and present danger c mmunicati n. ( ent n v. 3laytime "heatre)
that  uld arrant State intererence ± that a danger must n t nly be (1)
clear, but als (2) present, t justiy state acti n. "here must be bjective and / &#%'%# &+."he irst amendment d es n t prevent the sch l
c nvincing, n t subjective r c njectural, pr   the existence  such &+ district r m disciplining students in giving ensively led and indecent
#), #)#(, n t relying s lely n auth rity's n appraisal  hat speech at a sch l assembly. "he use  an ensive  rm  expressi n may
the public elare, peace r saety may require. And the /*)# t sh  the n t be pr hibited t adults making a p litical p int but it d es n t  ll  that
existence  grace and imminent danger, and bscenity that  uld justiy the same latitude must be permitted t children in public sch l. (Bethel
adverse acti n lies n the  . Sch l District v. Ãraser)

 What may r r auth rities must d is t secure a arrant and c nvince the  Sch ls have the auth rity t cens r i it c uld aect the educati n 
c urt r judge ith jurisdicti n that the materials s ught t be seized are thers. "his case led that the cens rship in the sch ls as nly acceptable i
" bscene," and p se a clear and present danger  an evil substantive en ugh it ere  r "valid educati nal purp se." Stricter rules sh uld be  ll ed  r

Æ- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

speech in sch l because  the nature  the c mmunity that is inv lved and
the relati nship beteen sch l and parents. (Hazel d Sch l District v.  9t bears stressing that suspensi n  public services, h ever temp rary, ill
Kuhlmeier) inevitably derail services t the public, hich is ne  the reas ns hy the
right t strike is denied g vernment empl yees. (Ac sta v. CA)

¯ $/+'#)%%#
## *+ (*+%#. "he g vernment has a right t regulate the !%#%%# ! */+%& ¯ $/+'. "he la reers t "rally, dem nstrati n,
time, manner and place  assemblies t ensure the maintenance  rder and march, parade, pr cessi n r any ther  rm  mass r c ncerted acti n held
public saety. in a public place." S it d es n t c ver any and all kinds  gatherings. 9t
regulates the exercise  the right t peaceul assembly and petiti n nly t
 "he may r p ssessed reas nable discreti n t determine r speciy the the extent needed t av id a clear and present danger  the substantive evils
streets  public places t be used  r the assembly in rder t secure C ngress has the right t prevent. "here is, likeise, n pri r restraint, since
c nvenient use there  by ther and pr vide adequate and pr per p licing t the c ntent  the speech is n t relevant t the regulati n.
minimize the risk  dis rder and maintain public saety and rder. (avarr v.
aillegas) 30%$*$+#&."he highest degree  restraint that the military, p lice
and ther peacekeeping auth rities shall bserve during a public assembly r
 "he primacy i human rights, reed m  expressi n,  peaceul assembly in the dispersal  the same.
and petiti n  r redress  grievances ver pr perty rights sh uld be
sustained. " regard the dem nstrati n against the p lice icers, n t against  Applicati n  r a permit can nly be denied n the gr und  clear and
the empl yer, as evidence  bad aith, a vi lati n  the CBA and a cause  r present danger t public rder, public saety, public m rals r public health.
the dismissal r m empl yment  the dem nstrating empl yees, stretches (Bayan v. grmita)
unduly the c mpass  the CBA, and is a p tent means  inhibiting speech 
and there re inlicts a m ral as ell as m rtal  und n the c nstituti nal 
guarantees  reeexpressi n  peaceul assembly and petiti n. (3hilippine   r   ¯ ¯  3¯    ¯
Bl ming ills v. 3B)  ¯ 3
       
7  
  
  
 7   ¯ - 3
    
+#) ##( ,,+%).9n the absence  a clear and 
   ¯       3¯  
present danger  a substantive evil t a legitimate public interest, there as  
  ¯
   ¯         
n justiicati n then t deny the exercise  the c nstituti nal rights  ree ¯   
   7  
    ¯
speech and peaceable assembly. 9t is settled la that as t public places,   
especially s as t parks and streets, there is reed m  access,  r is their 
use dependent n h is the applicant  r the permit, hether an individual r 
a gr up. ( eyes v. Bagatsing) ¯m #. /+% $#+* 
 either a state n r a ederal g vernment can set up a church, pass las
ules n Assembly and 3etiti n: 9AHD hich aid ne religi n r preer ne religi n ver an ther, n r can it penly r
1.m #!$ the licensing auth rity  the date, the public place here secretly participate in the aairs  any religi us rganizati ns. Creates a all
and the time hen it ill take place (private place nly c nsent   separati n beteen church and state
ner required) 
2.m ¯,,+%&%# iled ahead  time t enable public icial c ncerned t 
appraise hether there may be valid bjecti ns 
3.m (9ndispensable c nditi n t reusal r m diicati n that the C3D test  When is g vernment aid all able?
be the standard  r the decisi n reached) $#  aid must have: Sgg
4.m 9 public auth rity believes that there is an imminent and grave (a) &*+ legislative purp se,
danger  substantial evil, applicants must be ) n the matter. (b) must have a primary !!& that neither advances n r inhibits
5.m &% %# must be transmitted at the earliest pp rtunity. religi n,

Ær Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

(c) must &0& %"##(+$# ith recipient instituti n


(Pem n v. Kurtzman)  "he &F&, hich sat n the main and m st beautiul part  the c untry
c urth use, a seat  g vernment, sends an unmistakable message that the
State sp ns red bible readings and prayers in public sch ls vi lates ist and c untry supp rted and pr m ted the religi us message.
sec nd requisites (Sch l District v. Schempp)  "he $# display did n t have the pr hibited eect  end rsing
religi n, given its "particular physical setting". 9ts c mbined display ith a
&%+ &+  3ar chial sch ls, in additi n t their sectarian uncti n, Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did n t impermissibly end rse b th
per rm the task  secular educati n. "he C urt cann t agree that all the Christian and eish aiths, but simply rec gnized that b th Christmas and
teaching in a sectarian sch l is religi us, r that the intertining  secular Hanukkah are part  the same interh liday seas n, hich has attained a
and religi us training is such that secular textb ks urnished t students are, secular status in .S. s ciety. (C unty  Allegheny v. ACP )
in act, instrumental in teaching religi n.
›m "he la merely makes available t all children the beneits  a general By acc rding parents reed m t select a sch l  their ch ice, the statute
pr gram t lend sch lb ks ree  charge, and the inancial beneit is t ensures that a g vernmentpaid interpreter ill be present in a sectarian
parents and children, n t t sch ls. (B ard  gducati n v. Allen) sch l nly as a result  the private decisi n  individual parents. "he sign
language interpreter ill neither add t n r subtract r m that envir nment,
 "he entanglement in the 3ennsylvania als arises r m the restricti ns and hence the pr visi n  such assistance is n t barred by the gstablishment
surveillance necessary t ensure that teachers play a strictly n nide l gical Clause. (Z brest v. Catalina)
r le and the state supervisi n  n npublic sch l acc unting pr cedures
required t establish the c st  secular as distinguished r m religi us eligi us expressi n cann t vi late the gstablishment Clause here it
educati n. 9n additi n, the 3ennsylvania statute has the urther deect  (1) is purely ,%" and
pr viding c ntinuing inancial aid directly t the churchrelated sch ls. (2) ccurs in a traditi nal r designated ,*/+%& !*$, publicly ann unced
nc nstituti nal due  0& %" ##(+$# /# ("4 D and pen t all n equal terms.
+%(%#(Pem n v. Kurtzman)  "h se c nditi ns are satisied here, and there re   $' # /
 ,#)# C& !$,%+ 1*(Capit l Square evie B ard v.
 "he part  the pr visi n  the Higher gducati n Ãacilities Act  1963 3inette)
pr viding  r unlimited use  the buildings ( r hatever purp se) ater 20
years as invalidated as am unting t a c ntributi n t a religi us b dy.  What sh uld be signiicant is the principal bjective , n t the casual
("ilt n v. ichards n) c nsequence that might  ll  r m the exercise  the p er. "he purp se in
setting up the marker is essentially t rec gnize the distinctive c ntributi n, 
  ! */+%&
*#) E
&%+%%  "he issuance and sale  the stamps the late Ãelix anal t the culture  the 3hilippines, rather than t
c mmem rating the 9nternati nal gucharistic C ngress is aalid. "he c mmem rate his  unding  9glesia ni Crist . (an sca v. CA)
g vernment sh uld n t be precluded r m pursuing valid bjectives secular in
character even i the incidental result  uld be av rable t a religi n r sect. "here is n c mpelling justiicati n  r the g vernment t deprive uslim
(Aglipay v. uiz) rganizati ns,  their religi us right t classiy a pr duct as halal, even n the
premise that the health  uslim Ãilipin s can be eectively pr tected by
 "he  den image as purchased in c nnecti n ith the celebrati n  the assigning t OA the exclusive p er t issue halal certiicati ns. (9slamic
barri iesta h n ring the patr n saint, San aicente Ãerrer, and n t  r the Da¶ah v. gxecutive Secretary)
purp se  av ring any religi n n r interering ith religi us matters r the
religi us belies  the barri residents. "he iesta is a s ci religi us aair.  "he amendments  the c nstituti n, restatement  articles  religi n and
aband nment  aith r abjurati n alleged by appellant, having t d ith
  t every g vernmental activity hich inv lves the expenditure  public aith, practice, d ctrine,  rm   rship, ecclesiastical la, cust m and rule 
unds and hich has s me religi us tint is vi lative  the c nstituti nal a church and having reerence t the p er  excluding r m the church
pr visi ns regarding separati n  church and state, reed m   rship and th se allegedly un rthy  membership, are unquesti nably &&+ % %&+
banning the use  public m ney r pr perty. (Úarcez v. gstenz ) $ hich are utside the pr vince  the civil c urts. gxc mmunicati n

Ɖ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 members by a religi us 9nstituti n is c nclusive up n the c urts. ("aruc v. certiicati n ill be released depends up n the secretary  public elare.
Dela Cruz) gven i interests be eighed, there must be a sh ing  a clear and present
 danger in rder  r the state t limit the reed m  exercise  religi n.
&&+ % %&+!!%  ne that c ncerns d ctrine creed r  rm r  rship  (Cantell v. State  C nnecticut)
the church, r the ad pti n and en rcement ithin a religi us ass ciati n 
needul las and regulati ns  r the g vernment  the membership, and the  "he c nstituti nal guaranty  the ree exercise and enj yment  religi us
p er  excluding r m such ass ciati ns th se deemed un rthy  pr essi n and  rship carries ith it the right t disseminate religi us
membership. in rmati n. Any restraint can nly be justiied n the gr unds that there is
clear and present danger  any substantive evil, hich the state has the right
D es the dimissal  a 7th Day Adventist inister all ithin the purvie  the t prevent.
P C? What is inv lved here is the relati nship  the Church as an empl yer
and the minister as an empl yee. 9t is purely secular, and has n relati n  "he state may n t require a license  r the disseminati n  religi us
hats ever ith the practice  aith,  rship, r the d ctrines  the church. literature unless the disseminati n is d ne  r a business perati n (American
(Austria v. P C) Bible S ciety v. anila)


0&% +*   gxempti n may be acc rded t the eh vah's Witnesses ith regard t the
gmbraces t c ncepts ± reed m t believe and reed m t act. bservance  the lag cerem ny ut  respect  r their religi us belies,
h ever "bizarre" th se belies may seem t thers. (gbranilag v. Div.
a.
)$/+%"  c mpulsi n by la  the acceptance  any creed r Superintendent  Sch ls in Cebu)
the practice  any  rm   rship
ABSOP "g à ggDO "he g vernment cann t inquire int a pers n's religi us "he Air à rce has dran the line essentially beteen religi us apparel that is
pretenti ns. en may believe hat they cann t pr ve, they may n t be put t visible and that hich is n t. "he AÃ s reas nably and evenhandedly regulate
pr ve their religi us d ctrines r belies. dress in the interest  the military¶s perceived need  r uni rmity. (Ú ldman
v. Weinberger)
 "he abs luteness  the reed m t believe carries ith it the c r llary that
the g vernment, hile it may l k int the g d aith  a pers n, cann t ¯$%  esp ndents have amply supp rted their claim that en rcement 
inquire int a pers n's religi us pretensi ns. ( S v. Ballard) the c mpuls ry  rmal educati n requirement ater the eighth grade  uld
gravely endanger i n t destr y the ree exercise  their religi us belies. Only
b.
)$&# *&/+%! ree exercise  the ch sen religi n the interest  the highest rder and th se n t therise served can
O" ABSOP "g "he m ment belie l s ver int acti n, it bec mes subject verbalance legitimate claims t the ree exercise  religi n. (Wisc nsin v.
t g vernment regulati n Y der)
 Act must pass the clear and present danger test r the balancing  interest
test ± benev lent neutrality  esp ndents assured petiti ners that they have never and ill never restrict
m 9nv lves c mpulsi n r c erci n n the part  the state. any pers n r pers ns r m entering and  rshipping at said chapel. "hey
maintain, h ever, that the intenti n as n t really t per rm an act 
 "he ree exercise  religi us belie is superi r t c ntract rights, in case  religi us  rship but t c nduct an antig vernment dem nstrati n at a place
c nlict, the latter must yield t the  rmer. eligi us reed m, alth ugh n t cl se t the very residence and ices  the 3resident. "he reas nableness 
unlimited, is a undamental pers nal right and liberty, and has a preerred the restricti n  entry is is designed t pr tect the lives  the 3resident and
p siti n in the hierarchy  values. C ntractual rights must yield t religi us his amily, as ell as g vernment icials transacting business in alacanang.
reed m. (aict rian v. glizalde pe W rkers ni n) (Úerman v. Baranganan)

Ãree exercise  religi n d es n t pr hibit imp sing a generally applicable


 A certiicati n exclusively  r religi us s licitati n is in the  rm  pri r sales and use tax n sales  religi us materials by a religi us rganizati n.
restraint r cens rship  religi n since the determinati n  hether r n t a (" lentin v. Sec.  Ãinance)

Æ  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

S licitati n  the Samahan ng Katandaan ng "ikay  r Church en vati n +('%#*/+%& !!%& "he religi us reed m enshrined in the Bill  ights
S licitati n r c ntributi n in general, hich may include c ntributi n  r simply means that n public ice may be denied t any pers n, by reas n 
religi us purp ses, may be regulated by general la  r the pr tecti n  the his religi us belie, including his n nbelie. When he bec mes an ecclesiastic,
public and its citizens r m injury and suppress raudulent s licitati ns. he bec mes the icial minister  his church ith distinct duties and
(Centen v. aillal n 3 mill s) resp nsibilities hich may n t be alays c mpatible ith the p sture 
abs lute indierence and impartiality t all religi us belies. 3HgPD (3amil v.
 $% #)) ³A la that is neutral and  general applicability need "eler n)
n t be justiied by a c mpelling g v interest even i it has the incidental eect
 burdening a particular religi us practice.´  "he right t the ree exercise  religi n unquesti nably enc mpasses the
Pas that burden religi us practice d n t have t be justiied by a c mpelling right t preach, pr selyte, and per rm ther similar religi us uncti ns, r, in
g vernmental 9nterest i they are: ther  rds, t be a minister  the type cDaniel as  und t be. nder the
(1)m #*+ and clergydisqualiicati n pr visi n, cDaniel cann t exercise b th rights
(2)m (#+ applicability. (Church  Pukumi Babalu Ayeh v. City  simultane usly because the State has c nditi ned the exercise  ne n the
Heilaeah) surrender  the ther. COS"9" "9OAP (cDaniel v. 3aty)

 Since the ilm series  uld n t have been sh n during sch l h urs, n r  "he reed m t act t ne's belie is subject t regulati n here the belie is
as it sp ns red by the sch l, and  uld have been pen t the public, there translated int external acts that aect the public elare. "here re, the
 uld be n realistic danger that the c mmunity  uld think that the District religi us pr gram is n t bey nd revie by the B ard (9C v. CA)
as end rsing religi n r any creed. (Pambs Chapel v. Sch l District)
A creed must meet - &%%  1*+%!'   +%(%# under the Ãirst
'%# &+$$#&$#$#% . 9t is bey nd dispute that, Amendment: BÚCDSA"
at a minimum, the C nstituti n guarantees that g vernment may n t c erce 1.m "here must be /+%! %# ) r s me parallel belie that ccupies a
any ne t supp rt r participate in religi n r its exercise, r therise act in central place in the believer¶s lie.
a ay hich "establishes a [state] religi n r religi us aith, r tends t d 2.m "he religi n must inv lve a $+ &) transcending individual
s ." (Pee v. Weisman) belie, i.e., it cann t be purely subjective.
3.m A )$# /+ %#&%' in belie is necessary, but the c urt must
 As here any member  a religi us c rp rati n is expelled r m the n t inquire int the truth r reas nableness  the belie.
membership  r esp using d ctrines and teachings c ntrary t that  his 4.m "here must be s me  &%%#+ % , alth ugh there is als a
church, such an acti n is c nclusive up n civil c urts. (P ng v. Basa) vie that religi us belies held by a single pers n rather than being
part  the teachings  any kind  gr ups r sect are entitled t the
case: ired  r use  religi us pey te, c uld n t get unempl yed pr tecti n  the Ãree gxercise Clause.
c mpensati n. aalid because the religi us clause d es n t relieve an individual
 the bligati n t c mply ith a la that incidentally  rbids ( r requires) the "he religi us reed m d ctrines ne can derive r m  are:
per rmance  an act that his religi us belie requires r  rbids i the la is 1) 9t is incumbent up n the C urt t determine hether a certain ritual is
n t speciically directed t religi us practice religi us r n t;
2)    ©       ©       
+%(%*      ©  
               ©   
m  la shall be passed hich  uld require a pers n t pr ess a religi n  
    
      ©           
t qualiy in the exercise  his civil and p litical rights.   ©  $©
  ©     .
*,  t discredit the p licy  pr bing int ne¶s religi us belies by
test aths r limiting public ices t pers ns h pr ess t a particular #"+# #*+%' rec gnizes the religi us nature  the Ãilipin pe ple
religi n and the elevating inluence  religi n in s ciety; at the same time, it
 ackn ledges that the g vernment must pursue its secular g als. 9n pursuing
these g als, h ever, the g vernment might ad pt las r acti ns  general

Æü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

applicability, hich inadvertently burden religi us exercise. 9t all s these the requirements prescribed in the c nstituti n relative t the right t travel
breaches in the all  separati n t uph ld religi us liberty, hich ater all is d n t apply. (arc s v. angalapus)
the integral purp se  the religi n clauses. (gstrada v. gscrit r)
"he per rmance  religi us practices sh uld n t prejudice the c urts and the
public. eligi us reed m d es n t exempt any ne r m c mpliance ith "he right t "ravel may be curtailed by Administrative icers in the interest
reas nable requirements  the la, including the civil service las. (9n re.  nati nal security, public saety r public heath, as may be pr vided by la.
request  uslim gmpl yees)
%+ is the security given  r the release  a pers n in cust dy  the la,
  ‰    
 ¯  ¯
  ¯     ¯3 urnished by him r a b ndsman, c nditi ned up n his appearance be re any
    3       ¯ ¯    3¯  c urt hen s required by the C urt r the ules  C urt.
7   ¯
  
         ¯  
     ¯  3¯  7      
  An accused released n bail may be rearrested ith ut the necessity  a
¯ ¯    ¯
   ¯  ¯  3¯ arrant i he attempts t depart r m the 3hilippines ith ut pri r permissi n
 ¯  the C urt here the case is pending. (Silveri v. CA)

¯%/'(#)/',"% %# 3etiti ner has p sted bail, hich the C urt has declared legally valid and
1.m Ãreed m t &  #) &#( #C  ,+& ! /) may be c mplete despite her absence at the time  iling. By virtue  hich, she
impaired up n laul rder  the c urt and ithin the limits h lds hersel amenable at all times t the rders and pr cesses  the c urt,
prescribed by la. thus she may legally be pr hibited r m leaving the c untry during the
pendency  the case. (Santiag v. aasquez)
%/'!¯/) One can search in vain  r any la, rder, r regulati n,
hich even hints at the right  the ay r  the city  anila r the chie   3etiti ner )%)#"#/ +* %( +" &*#' and the
p lice  that city, t  rce citizens  the 3hilippine 9slands(these  men /*)# #," that because  danger t health i n t t her
despite their being in a sense lepers  s ciety are nevertheless n t chattels lie there as necessity t seek medical treatment in  reign c untries.
but 3hilippine citizens pr tected by the same c nstituti nal guaranties as any (arc s v. Sandiganbayan)
ther citizens(t change their d micile r m anila t an ther l cality.
(aillavicenci v. Pukban) ++' E %(' .3r hibiti n n the use  m t rcycles in t llays is n t
an undue deprivati n  petiti ner¶s right t travel. " ll ay is n t merely an
 "he right t change ab de and travel ithin the 3hilippines, being inv ked by rdinary r ad and  r public saety and interest, certain restricti ns must be
petiti ner, are n t abs lute rights. 9t can be regulated by a laul rder such imp sed. 3etiti ner¶s right t travel is n t taken aay since ith the use 
as releasing a petiti ner n bail. (Yap v. CA) ther  rms  transp rtati n, they may still travel thr ugh t ll ays r use
alternate r utes i they are t use their m t rcycles. (iras l v. D3WH)
2.m
)$  "+ b th ithin the c untry and utside may be 
impaired by administrative auth rities, such as passp rt icers, in   ?    
      3¯ 
 
the interest  nati nal security r public health als impaired by bail    ¯   6 ¯   

¯   
 ¯    3  ¯ ¯   ¯   

¯ ¯ 
%("+."he right inv lved in this case at bar is the right t return t  ¯ ¯        ¯   ¯     3
ne's c untry, a distinct right under internati nal la, independent r m,  ¯  ¯¯ ¯ ¯  
  3 ¯
alth ugh related t the right t travel. "hus, the DH and the 9CC3 treat ¯

   6  -     3¯   ¯  3¯ 


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

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

subject t reas nable saeguards  r the sake  nati nal


 "he inc rp rati n in the C nstituti n  a guarantee  access t in rmati n interest. ight attaches OPY up n inal appr val  the
 public c ncern is rec gniti n  the essentiality  the ree l   ideas and 3resident.
in rmati n in a dem cracy. 9n the instant case, hile reusing t c nirm r ¯ ‰? the ³C de  C nduct and gthical Standards  r 3ublic Oicials and
deny the claims  eligibility, the resp ndent has ailed t cite any pr visi n in gmpl yees´ pr vides that, in the per rmance  their duties, all public icials
the Civil Service Pa hich  uld limit the petiti ner's right t kn  h are, and empl yees are bliged t resp nd t letters sent by the public ithin
and h are n t, civil service eligible¶s. (Pegaspi v. CSC) iteen (15)  rking days r m receipt there  and t ensure the accessibility
 all public d cuments  r inspecti n by the public ithin reas nable  rking
3etiti ner requested  r in rmati n n the eligibility  Sanitary standard h urs, subject t the reas nable claims  c nidentiality. (Ú nzalez v.
inspect rs: (Pegazpi v. CSC)3S arvasa)
1.m 9s such in rmati n a matter  ,*/+%&&#&#?
(3   "embrace a br ad spectrum  subjects hich the public While access t icial rec rds may n t be pr hibited, % &%#+' $' /
may have a right t kn , either because they directly aect their lives r (*+) "he regulati n may c me either r m statut ry la and r m the
simply because they ar use the interest  an rdinary citizen) inherent p er  an icer t c ntr l his ice and the rec rds under his
2.m D es petiti ner have #)%#(? cust dy and t exercise s me discreti n as t the manner in hich pers ns
3.m 9 denied, hat $)' d es he have? andamus desiring t inspect, examine, r c py the rec rd may exercise their rights. "he
requirement  payment  r the repr ducti n is reas nable under the
"he right t in rmati n g es handinhand ith the c nstituti nal p licies  circumstances c nsidering that the rdinance is quite v lumin us c nsisting 
ull public discl sure and h nesty in the public service. 9t is meant t enhance m re than a hundred pages. (Berdin v. ascarinas)
the idening r le  the citizenry in the g vernmental decisi nmaking as ell
as in checking abuse in the g vernment. Albeit, the right t in rmati n is n t  ."he g vernment, hether carrying ut its s vereign attributes r
abs lute, it is limited t matters  public c ncern and interest, and is urther running s me business, discharges the same uncti ns  service t the
subject t limitati ns as may be imp sed by la. pe ple. 9t is the clear intent  the c nstituti nal C mmissi n t include
g vernment ned and c ntr lled c rp rati ns in the sc pe  the right t
 As t urnishing lists h ever, r abstracts  l ans, there is O clear in rmati n. (aalm nte v. Belm nte)
bligati n hich may be c mpelled by mandamus. "he C nstituti n d es n t
acc rd them the right t c mpel cust dians  icial rec rds t prepare lists,  . 9t is incumbent up n the 3CÚÚ and its icers, as ell as ther
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire t acquire in rmati n n g vernment representatives, t discl se suicient public in rmati n n any
matters  public c ncern. (aalm nte v. Belm nte) pr p sed settlement they have decided t take up ith the stensible ners
and h lders  illg tten ealth. Such in rmati n, th ugh, must pertain t
m ight may be regulated thr ugh standards that have been devel ped  r deinite pr p siti ns  the g vernment. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ)
the regulati n  speech and press and  assembly and petiti n and 
ass ciati n are applicable t the right  access t in rmati n: 3 ."here is n d ubt that the " CB is public is character; it is an ice
1.m Substantive regulati ns ± t kn  hat is s ught is  public c ncern created t serve public interest. 9t being the case, resp ndents can lay n
2.m Statut ry regulati ns ± la may exempt d cuments aecting public valid claim t privacy. "he right t privacy bel ngs t the individual acting in
interest his private capacity and n t t a g vernmental agency r icers tasked ith,
3.m 3r cedural regulati ns ± icers may regulate the manner by hich and acting in, the discharge  public duties. Decisi ns (in this case, the
the pers n may l k thr ugh the in rmati n " CB) made in an icial capacity are public and n t private matters.
a.m "#$##&  right attaches nce the c mmittee (Aquin Sarmient v.  rat )
makes its      , hich is a ³© 
  ) n the part  the g vernment.  3.Applying the O¶ Brien test, the C urt inds that said la is a valid
b.m %  E  &*#%  9n n interg vernment exercise  the p er  the State t regulate media  c mmunicati n r
exchanges pri r t the c nclusi n  treaties and executive in rmati n  r the purp se  ensuring equal pp rtunity  time and space
agreements ith regard t dipl matic neg tiati ns may be  r p litical campaigns. (Osmena v. COgPgC)

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

the reas nable limitati ns required  r the rderly c nduct  icial business.
 "he COgPgC vi lated the right t in rmati n and ree access t d cuments (Ú nzalez v. arvasa)
clause hen it reused t discl se the n minees  the partylist gr ups.
While the v te cast in a partylist electi n is a v te  r a party, such a v te, in
the end,  uld be a v te  r its n minees. 3e ple have the right t elect their
representatives n the basis  an in rmed judgment. &(#%=)+%$%%# #%(%#!$%#S"SCD
(a) %#+ &*%' matters including state secrets n military,
 "here is n thing that pr hibits the C melec r m discl sing r even dipl matic and ther nati nal security and in rmati n n inter
publishing the names  the partylist n minees thr ugh mediums ther than g vernment exchanges pri r t c nclusi n  executive agreements r
the certiied list (Bantay v. COgPgC) treaties,
(b) ) & and banking transacti ns,
##+ 3#*+ . "he requirement  c nidentiality  the c ntents  the (c) %$%#+$ r classiied la en rcement matters,
manual c ntaining the details and pr cedure  administering lethal injecti n (d) ther c nidential matters ()%,+$%& aairs)
ith respect t the c nvict is unduly suppressive  r the c ntents  the same
is a matter  public c ncern. (gchagaray v. Sec.  ustice) equirements  the  %)#%+$$*#%&%# %"%+(QO3C
"#$# #& .  Ú vernment agencies, ith ut need  demand 1.m "he c mmunicati n must relate t a '1*%# #%+ and n n
r m any ne, must bring int public vie all the steps and neg tiati ns delegable p er  the 3resident  the p er t enter int an
leading t the c nsummati n  the transacti n and the c ntents  the executive agreement ith ther c untries.
perected c ntract. "he g vernment agency, h ever, need n t discl se 2.m "he c mmunicati ns are "received" by a cl se advis r  the
³intraagency r interagency rec mmendati ns r c mmunicati ns during the 3resident under the ³,%#+,0%$%' ´
expl rat ry stage.´ (Chavez v. HA) ±similar t Chavez v. 3CÚÚ 3.m "here is  &     ©  &$,++%#( #) that  uld
justiy the limitati n  the privilege and the unavailability  the
 Once the c mmittee makes its      , there arises a in rmati n elsehere by an appr priate investigating auth rity.
³©    ) n the part  the g vernment. Ãr m this m ment, the
public¶s right t in rmati n attaches, and any citizen can access all the n n  "he right  C ngress t btain in rmati n in aid  legislati n cann t be
pr prietary in rmati n leading t such deinite pr p siti n. equated ith the pe ple's right t public in rmati n. "he  rmer cann t claim
 A c nsummated c ntract is n t a requirement  r the exercise  the right t that every legislative inquiry is an exercise  the pe ple¶s right t in rmati n.
in rmati n. Otherise, the pe ple can never exercise the right i n c ntract
is c nsummated, and i ne is c nsummated, it may be t late  r the public %(#1*%' C ngress¶ right t pass las necessarily implies the right t
t exp se its deects. equiring a c nsummated c ntract ill keep the public btain in rmati n up n any matter hich may bec me the subject  a la.
in the dark until the c ntract bec mes a ait acc mpli. nder the present circumstances, the alleged an malies in the 3hilc msat,
 "he c nstituti nal right t in rmati n includes icial in rmati n n " 3HC and 3O" ranging in milli ns  pes s, and the c nspirat rial participati n
      be re a inal c ntract. "he in rmati n, h ever,   3CÚÚ and its icials are c mpelling reas ns  r the Senate t exact vital
 ©     by the g vernment and sh uld n t c ver in rmati n r m the direct rs and icers  3hilc msat H ldings C rp rati n,
          ©     
       as ell as r m Chairman Sabi and his C mmissi ners t aid it in crating the
       ©©      
    . necessary legislati n t prevent c rrupti n and  rmulate remedial measures
(Chavez v. 3gA) and p licy determinati n regarding 3CÚÚ¶s eicacy. (Sabi v. Ú rd n)

 Zam ra, in his icial capacity as gxecutive Secretary, has a c nstituti nal .*+)/, *$,** #,!* *$$%+'
and statut ry duty t anser petiti ner¶s letter dealing ith matters hich are &$,+ ,*/+%&  ,#)# t c mply ith pertinent pr visi ns  la
unquesti nably  public c ncern ± that is, app intments made t public regarding pr curement  g vernment inrastructure pr jects %* #'
ices and the utilizati n  public pr perty. With regard t petiti ner¶s !&*+ / % r pri r determinati n  very particular vi lati ns c mmitted
request  r c pies  the app intment papers  certain icials, resp ndent by speciic g vernment icials  the executive branch. (Suplic v. gDA)
Zam ra is bliged t all  the inspecti n and c pying  the same subject t

6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 Decisi ns and pini ns  a c urt are  c urse matters  public c ncern r justiy the exercise  the pe ple's right t be c nsulted n relevant matters
interest. ustice thus requires that all sh uld have ree access t the pini n  relating t the peace agenda.
judges and justices. But unlike c urt rders and decisi ns, h ever,
,+)%#( #) )&*$#  !%+)/' ,%   & #)# /  , g.O.  . 3 itsel is replete ith mechanics  r c ntinuing c nsultati ns n
$ !,*/+%&&#&#%#  9n determining hich part  a case b th nati nal and l cal levels and  r a principal  rum  r c nsensusbuilding.
may be accessed, the purp se  r hich the parties iled them is c nsidered. 9n act, it is the duty  the 3residential Adviser n the 3eace 3r cess t
Úranting unrestricted public access and publicity t pers nal in rmati n may c nduct regular dial gues t seek relevant in rmati n, c mments, advice,
c nstitute an unarranted invasi n  privacy. (Hilad v. eyes) and rec mmendati ns r m peace partners and c ncerned sect rs  s ciety.

%,+$%&(%%#  "he ature  dipl macy requires the * , epublic Act  . 7160 r the P cal Ú vernment C de  1991 requires all
centralizati n  auth rity and expediti n  decisi n, hich are inherent in nati nal ices t c nduct c nsultati ns be re any pr ject r pr gram critical
executive acti n. Delegates r m ther c untries tell y u their c ncerns in t the envir nment and human ec l gy including th se that may call  r the
c nidence, and hile the inal text  the 3g3A may n t be perpetually evicti n  a particular gr up  pe ple residing in such l cality, is
c nidential, the ers exchanged by the parties during the neg tiati ns implemented therein. "he OAAD is ne peculiar pr gram that unequiv cally
c ntinue t be privileged even ater the 3g3A is published. 9t is reas nable t and unilaterally vests nership  a vast territ ry t the Bangsam r pe ple,
assume that the apanese delegates expect that ³hist ric c nidentiality´ hich c uld pervasively and drastically result t the diasp ra r displacement
 uld g vern the same. (Akbayan v. Aquin )  a great number  inhabitants r m their t tal envir nment.

 3     ¯¯ ?      *, epublic Act  . 8371 r the 9ndigen us 3e ples ights Act  1997
3   333? 3¯ 3¯  ¯? ¯ pr vides  r clearcut pr cedure  r the rec gniti n and delineati n 
¯ 3 ancestral d main, hich entails, am ng ther things, the bservance  the
"he pe ple's right t in rmati n n matters  public c ncern under Sec. 7, ree and pri r in rmed c nsent  the 9ndigen us Cultural
Article 999  the C nstituti n is in   

ith the state p licy  C mmunities/9ndigen us 3e ples. +  
     
ull public discl sure  all its transacti ns inv lving public interest under Sec. , -   
    
     
28, Article 99  the C nstituti n. "he right t in rmati n guarantees the right          
      
 the pe ple t demand in rmati n, hile Secti n 28 rec gnizes the duty 
iciald m t give in rmati n even i n b dy demands. "he c mplete and "he inv cati n  the d ctrine  executive privilege as a deense t the
eective exercise  the right t in rmati n necessitates that its general right t in rmati n r the speciic right t c nsultati n is untenable.
c mplementary pr visi n n public discl sure derive the same selexecut ry "he vari us explicit legal pr visi ns ly in the ace  executive secrecy. 9n any
nature, subject nly t reas nable saeguards r limitati ns as may be event, resp ndents eectively aived such deense ater it unc nditi nally
pr vided by la. discl sed the icial c pies  the inal drat  the OAAD,  r judicial
c mpliance and public scrutiny.
"he c ntents  the OAAD is a matter  param unt public c ncern inv lving
public interest in the highest rder. 9n declaring that the right t in rmati n   @    
        
c ntemplates steps and neg tiati ns leading t the c nsummati n  the 3  ¯ ¯   
3  
c ntract, jurisprudence inds n distincti n as t the execut ry nature r ¯ ¯     
           ¯ 
c mmercial character  the agreement.  ¯ ¯ ¯  

An essential element  these tin reed ms is t keep a c ntinuing dial gue m Ú vernment empl yees have the right t  rm uni ns but this d es n t
r pr cess  c mmunicati n beteen the g vernment and the pe ple. include the right t strike. 
C r llary t these tin rights is the design  r eedback mechanisms. "he right 
t public c nsultati n as envisi ned t be a species  these public rights.  Ú vernment empl yees are denied the same eap ns/m des  petiti ning
and neg tiati n that their private sect r c unterparts have  r the betterment
At least three pertinent las animate these c nstituti nal imperatives and  the terms and c nditi ns  their empl yment. (SSS gmpl yees v. CA)

Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

Mm ³this C urt had already deinitively ruled that empl yees in the public m ltimate right  s vereign p er t appr priate, n t nly public, but als
(civil) service, unlike th se in the private sect r, d n t have the right private pr perty ithin the territ rial s vereignty,  r public purp ses.
t strike, alth ugh guaranteed the right t sel rganizati n, t petiti n m 9nherently p ssessed by the State thr ugh the ati nal g vernment
C ngress  r the betterment  empl yment terms and c nditi ns and (+(% +*) and may be delegated t :
t neg tiate ith appr priate g vernment agencies  r the a)m l cal g vernment units, pursuant t an rdinance
impr vement  such  rking c nditi ns as are n t ixed by la´ enacted by respective legislative b dies.
(anila 3ublic Sch l "eachers Ass c. v. Pagui r.) b)m 3ublic utilities, as may be delegated by la.

 anagerial empl yees are n t all ed t j in, assist, r  rm uni ns. 1*% % !"+%)0&% !,!$%##)$%#
 "he Pab r C de may pr hibit managerial empl yees r m a.m "he pr perty taken must be private pr perty;
j ining/assisting/ rming any lab r rganizati ns: b.m "here must be genuine necessity t take the private
Mm Sec. 8 says ³"he right  the pe plet  rm uni ns, ass ciati ns, r pr perty;
s cieties  r purp ses       shall n t be abridged´ c.m "he taking must be  r public use;
Mm Pab r c de is la, uni n participati n  managerial empl yees is d.m "here must be payment  just c mpensati n; and
c ntrary t Pa e.m "he taking must c mply ith due pr cess  la.
³i these managerial empl yees  uld bel ng t r be ailiated ith a ni n, 
the latter might n t be assured  their l yalty t the ni n in vie  evident 1*% % ! 0&% $%##)$%#
c nlict  interest. "he ni n can als bec me c mpanyd minated ith the 1.m aalid and deinite er previ usly made t the ner but as n t
presence  managerial empl yees in the ni n membership.´ ( 3SC v. accepted
Paguesma) 2.m Ordinance enacted auth rizing such exercise
 Alth ugh the 9   3     1953 airmed the right  supervis rs, 3.m 3 er enacted  r public use, elare, purp se r  r the beneit
r
#.+%#3#( t  rm their n rganizati ns.  the p r and landless
4.m 3ayment  just c mpensati n
 "he right t j in ass ciati ns includes %( >%#
 ne can be c mpelled t j in an ass ciati n ith ut his c nsent. As underst d r m the c mm n and usual meaning  the c njuncti n and,
 "he bylas r charters  c rp rati n cann t bind r c mpel a pers n, n t the pr visi ns  3D 1517 apply nly t areas declared t be l cated ithin
party t the creati n  the charter/bylas, t bec me a member  the b th an Area  r 3ri rity Devel pment (A3D) and an rban Pand e rm Z ne
c rp rati n/ass ciati n because he has n t given his c nsent. ( P Z). (S landa v. CA)
(Sta. Clara H me ners Ass ciati n v. Úast n)
9t is n ted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney,
But a ))! +, hich pr vides that the buyer must aut matically j in an primarily because the small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big
ass ciati n, is binding because his participati n in the c ntract implies his land ners, h can a rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things 
c nsent. He c uld have ch sen t n t purchase the pr perty. value. (Sant s v. Pand Bank)
 nder the " rrens system  registrati n, claims and liens  hatever
character except th se menti ned by la existing against the land binds the Despite the existence  this legislative grant in av r  l cal g vernments, it
h lder  the title and the h le  rld. 3ADCO c uld have av ided is still the duty  the c urts t determine hether the p er  eminent
membership by n t buying the land. (3ADCO vs. Ortigas Center Ass ciati n) d main is being exercised in acc rdance ith the delegating la. "he
requisites t be c nsidered by the c urts are:
1.m An rdinance is enacted by the l cal legislative c uncil
  G  ¯    ¯    ¯B
  auth rizing the l cal chie executive, in behal  the l cal
  -  3 ¯  g vernment unit, t exercise the p er  eminent d main r
 pursue expr priati n pr ceedings ver a particular private
9m 0,,%%#%# #+ pr perty. x x x
$%##$%#

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

9n the present case, the City  andaluy ng seeks t exercise the p er  gxpr priati n is n t limited t the acquisiti n  real pr perty ith a
eminent d main ver petiti ners' pr perty by means  a res luti n, in c rresp nding transer  title r p ssessi n. "he right ay easement
c ntraventi n  the irst requisite. Secti n 19  the C de requires an resulting in a restricti n r limitati n n pr perty rights ver the land
rdinance, n t a res luti n,  r the exercise  the p er  eminent d main. traversed by transmissi n lines als alls ithin the ambit  the term
"expr priati n."
"he C urt, in    
 © 3  &  .  
     ,
distinguished beteen an rdinance and a res luti n. ³A municipal rdinance -*  &$,# %# %  )!%#)    !*++ #) !% 1*%"+# ! 
is dierent r m a res luti n. An rdinance is a la, but a res luti n is merely ,,' 2# !$ %  # /'  0,,%  $ * % 
a declarati n  the sentiment r pini n  a lamaking b dy n a speciic #  2C  (%# /*  #C  + "he  rd "just" is used t
matter. An rdinance p ssesses a general and permanent character, but a intensiy the meaning  the  rd "c mpensati n" and t c nvey thereby the
res luti n is temp rary in nature. Additi nally, the t are enacted dierently idea that the equivalent t be rendered  r the pr perty t be taken shall be
² a third reading is necessary  r an rdinance, but n t  r a res luti n, real, substantial, ull and ample. "he valuati n  a pr perty in the tax
unless decided therise by a maj rity  all the Sanggunian members.´ declarati n cann t be an abs lute substitute t just c mpensati n. (3C v.
(Heirs  Albert Suguitan v. City  andaluy ng) Capin)


%#+%'!-*)($#."he judgment giving HA the right t expr priate the /9m #)20,,%%# 
pr perties menti ned became inal and execut ry. ³9t is arbitrary and */ %*%#."he real party in interest in expr priati n cases is the epublic
caprici us  r a g vernment agency t initiate expr priati n pr ceedings, seize  the 3hilippines. gxpr priati n suits are br ught in behal  and  r the
a pers n¶s pr perty, all  the judgment  the c urt t bec me inal and beneit  the epublic  the 3hilippines. it  ll s that the epublic  the
execut ry and then reuse t pay n the gr und that there are n 3hilippines is entitled t be substituted in the expr priati n pr ceedings as
appr priati ns  r the pr perty earlier taken and pr itably used.³ (HA v. partyplainti in lieu  9SA, the statut ry term  9SA having expired. 3ut a
Heirs  9sidr Úuivel nd ) little dierently, the expirati n  9SA's statut ry term did n t by itsel require
r justiy the dismissal  the eminent d main pr ceedings. (9r n and Steel
9n the case    3P-*, the C urt held that alth ugh an easement  Auth rity v. CA)
a right  ay transmits n rights except the easement itsel, and resp ndent
retains ull nership  the pr perty, the acquisiti n  such easement is, "hresh ld requisites  r laul taking  private pr perty  r public use need
nevertheless, n t  . C nsidering the nature and the eect  the t be examined here: ne is the necessity  r the taking; an ther is the legal
installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use  the land  r an indeinite auth rity t eect the taking.A reas nable relati nship beteen that p er
peri d  uld deprive resp ndent  n rmal use  the pr perty. Ã r this and the en rcement and administrati n  electi n las by C melec must be
reas n, the latter is entitled t payment  a just c mpensati n, hich must sh n; it is n t casually t be assumed. (3hilippine 3ress 9nstitute v.
be neither m re n r less than the m netary equivalent  the land. COgPgC)

While Secti n 3(a)  .A.  .6395, as amended, and the implementing rule (*+%#!%"%+(% #2%#( 9n truth, radi and televisi n
 .A.  . 8974 indeed state that nly 10%  the market value  the br adcasting c mpanies, hich are given ranchises, d n t n the airaves
pr perty is due t the ner  the pr perty subject t an easement  right and requencies thr ugh hich they transmit br adcast signals and images.
ay, said rule is n t binding n the C urt. Wellsettled is the rule that the "hey are merely given the temp rary privilege  using them. Since a
determinati n  "just c mpensati n" in eminent d main cases is a judicial ranchise is a mere privilege, the exercise  the privilege may reas nably be
uncti n. Any valuati n  r just c mpensati n laid d n in the statutes may burdened ith the per rmance by the grantee  s me  rm  public service.
serve nly as guiding principle r ne  the act rs in determining just ("elebap v. COgPgC)
c mpensati n but it may n t substitute the c urt's n judgment as t hat 
am unt sh uld be aarded and h  t arrive at such am unt. (3C v. $,+%#&%,&)*+)*,& % $#)'#)$#%#
3ure ds) $* /+    9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings are t
be res rted t nly ater the ther m des  acquisiti n have been exhausted.
C mpliance ith these c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

saeguards  tentimes helpless ners  private pr perty against vi lati n pr perty     a e cases here there is a necessity t
 due pr cess hen their pr perty is  rcibly taken r m them  r public use. c niscate private pr perty in rder t destr y it  r the purp se  pr tecting
(gstate  Heirs  the Pate gxustice BP v. City  anila) peace and rder and t pr m te the general elare. By c niscating a part 
a private cemetery t be given t paupers, the city is n t exercising p lice
 3rivate lands rank last in the rder  pri rity  r purp ses  s cialized p er but rather, the taking  private pr perty, hich sh uld be
h using. 9n the same vein, expr priati n pr ceedings may be res rted t nly c mpensated. (Úarcia v. CA)
ater the ther m des  acquisiti n are exhausted. C mpliance ith these
c nditi ns is mandat ry because these are the nly saeguards  tentimes  "he air is a public highay, as C ngress has declared. But this general
helpless ners  private pr perty against hat may be a tyrannical vi lati n principle d es n t apply here. 9 the land ner is t have ull enj yment  the
 due pr cess hen their pr perty is  rcibly taken r m them allegedly  r land, he must have exclusive c ntr l  the immediate reaches  the
public use. (Pagca v. Pabra) envel ping atm sphere. "h ugh nly an  $#!!+%(is inv lved, that
 easement, i     
  
,  uld be a deinite
&9m %( ! #/!0,,%%# exercise  c mplete d mini n and c ntr l ver the surace  the land. "he
act that the planes never t uched the surace  uld be irrelevant. "he
 A cl se scrutiny  the rec rds reveals that the Sangguniang Bayan did n t ner's right t p ssess and expl it the land  that is t say, his beneicial
establish r maintain any public market n the subject l t. "he res luti n nership  it   uld be destr yed. 9t is the Oner¶s P ss, O" the taker¶s
merely menti ned the plan t acquire the l t  r expansi n  the public gain, hich is imp rtant.
market adjacent theret . #%+0,,%%#,&)%#( %# %*)
%#&*+#)#&##/),%")!% %("+#).  C mpensable taking d es n t need t inv lve all the pr perty 9nterests,
(Úreater Balanga v. unicipality  Balanga) hich  rm part  the right t nership. When ne r m re  the pr perty
rights are appr priated and applied t a public purp se, there is taking even i
 9t must be stressed that the agreement t transer the pr perty as made in the bare title t the pr perty still remains ith the private ner. ( S v.
1974.  re than tenty years later, n actual transer had yet been made. Causby)
nless and until the transer is c nsummated, r expr priati n pr ceedings
instituted by the g vernment, private resp ndent c ntinues t retain  3r perty rights essentially include the ull use  the pr perty. An rdinance
nership  the land subject  this case. (aelarma v. CA) hich permanently restricts the use  pr perty, that it cann t be used  r any
reas nable purp se, is rec gnized as a taking  pr perty. 9 the municipality
)9m +$# !2%#( ants t assure that n structure  uld bstruct the vie  the plaza, they
equisites  r "aking: sh uld have given just c mpensati n  r the land. (3e ple v. Ãajard )
1.m "he expr priat r must enter up n the private pr perty
2.m "he entrance must n t be  r a m mentary peri ds, that is, the */+%&%+%%  While the epublic may n t c mpel 3PD" t enter int a
entrance must be permanent c ntract, the epublic may, in the exercise  eminent d main, require 3PD"
3.m "he entry must be under the arrant r c l r  legal auth rity t permit interc nnecti n  the g vernment ph ne system / 3PD", subject
4.m "he pr perty must be dev ted  r public use t just c mpensati n t be determined by the c urt.
5.m tilizati n  the pr perty must be in such a ay as t ust the ner
and deprive him  all beneicial enj yment  the pr perty.  "here is n reas n hy the State may n t require a public utility t render
( epublic v. ada. De Castelvi) services in the general interest, pr vided just c mpensati n is paid there r.
ltimately, the beneiciary  the interc nnecting service  uld be the users 
 Where there is n taking  pr perty  r purp ses  eminent d main, n r b th teleph ne systems, s that the c ndemnati n  uld be  r public use.
c ndemnati n pr ceedings instituted, the basis  r determinati n  just ( ep. v. 3PD")
c mpensati n is the time hen the trial c urt made its )  expr priati n.
(Úarcia v. CA)  p n the iling  the c mplaint in gminent D main pr ceedings, r at any
time thereater, ater due n tice t deendant, the petiti ner has the right t
*%++ !*,  3 lice 3 er d es n t include the p er t take take r enter up n the p ssessi n  the real pr perty inv lved i he dep sits

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

an am unt equivalent t the assessed value  the pr perty ith the 3B  r pr ceedings, the just c mpensati n is generally the market value.
purp ses  taxati n. (3C v.  cs n)
 "he nature and character  the land at the time  its taking is the principal
 "here is n taking since the landmark la had n t transerred c ntr l ver criteri n  r determining h  much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the
the pr perty t the city, but nly   the appellant's expl itati n  it. A land ner. (3C v. anubay)
state statute that substantially urthers imp rtant public p licies and   
the quality  lie by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic eatures >* &$,# %# is c nsidered t be the sum equivalent t the market
 a city may s rustrate distinct 9agS"g"BACKgD 9"g gS"S. value  the pr perty, br adly described t be the pr perty¶s !%$2
"+*, r:
 "here is a D9ÃÃg gCg beteen gASOABPg use  pr perty and OS" ³"he price ixed by the seller in pen market in the usual and rdinary c urse
BggÃ9C9AP use  pr perty =  ³taking´ ccurs i ner can still reas nably  legal acti n and c mpetiti n O the air value  the pr perty as beteen
use the pr perty, even i he may bear s me l sses due t State¶s ne h receives, and ne h desires t sell it, ixed at the time the  its
restricti n/las. actual taking by the g vernment.´

HOWgag ,  %&%##+,,'$'&# %*H2%#(H%!: 9n +3 right  ay easement resulting in  %&%#
a.m  public purp se +%$%%# n pr perty rights als alls ithin the ambit  ³expr priati n´ as
b.m Has an unduly harsh impact up n the ner's use  the there as l ud buzzing and expl ding s unds caused by the transmissi n
pr perty lines, it aects the rights  the ner t use r sell such land. (3C v. San
c.m Has same eect as the c mplete destructi n  rights  land 3edr )
ners(3enn Central "ransp rt v. YC)
  9n the determinati n  [air market] value, the c urt is n t limited t the
) & . Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many  assessed value  the pr perty r t the schedule  market values determined
the characteristics  m re traditi nal  rms  pr perty.  re ver, this C urt by the pr vincial r city appraisal c mmittee; these values c nsist but ne
has  und ther kinds  intangible interests t be pr perty  r purp ses  the act r in the judicial valuati n  the pr perty. "he       the
Clause. "he c urt als held that s l ng as the taking has a c nceivable public land at the time  its taking is the principal criteri n  r determining h 
character, the means by hich it ill be attained is  r c ngress t determine. much just c mpensati n sh uld be given t the land ner. All the acts as t
9n deciding ,%&*+("#$#+&%# (sh rt  the   ©  
and    , as ell as its    
acquisiti n) !!&)2%#(, this C urt  cuses n:  , sh uld be c nsidered.
1)m "he character  the g vernmental acti n
2)m "he ec n mic impact  9 the easement is %##)) t perpetually r indeinitely deprive the ner
3)m Whether the acti n intereres ith reas nable investmentbacked  his pr prietary rights by imp sing c nditi ns that aect the rdinary 
expectati ns © $
      the pr perty r thr ugh    
( uckelshaus v.  nsant )   that are inc nsistent ith the exercise  the attributes 
nership, r hen the intr ducti n  structures r bjects hich, by their
 An  $#!%(!' transmits n rights except the easement nature,        
 © $
     
itsel; resp ndent retains ull nership  the pr perty. "he acquisiti n  ©© and pr perty  und n the land is necessary, then the ner sh uld be
such easement is, nevertheless,   . C nsidering the nature and the c mpensated  r the m netary equivalent  the land. (3C v. "iangc )
eect  the installati n p er lines, the limitati ns n the use  the land  r
an  ©     uld deprive resp ndent  n rmal use  the pr perty.  "he taking  private lands under the (%#!$,($ partakes
"he latter is entitled t just c mpensati n, hich must be neither m re n r  the nature  an expr priati n pr ceeding.
less than the land¶s m netary equivalent.  Since just c mpensati n embraces n t nly the c rrect determinati n  the
am unt t be paid t the ners  the land, but als its payment ithin a
 ust c mpensati n is deined as the ull and air equivalent  the pr perty reas nable time r m the taking  the land, e think that the appellate c urt
taken r m its ner by the expr priat r. 9n eminent d main r expr priati n c rrectly imp sed an %#  in the nature  damages  r the delay. (PB3 v.

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

9mperial) purp se  the taking is public, meaning, any act that may be beneicially
empl yed  r the general elare, then the p er  eminent d main c mes
 C nsidering the nature and the eect  the installati n p er lines, the int play.(Sumul ng v. Úuerrer )
limitati ns n the use  the land  r an indeinite peri d  uld deprive
resp ndent  n rmal use  the pr perty. "he C urt has c nsistently held that
the determinati n  just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n.  statute,  "he City  anila, thr ugh its legislative branch, has the express p er t
decree, r executive rder can mandate that its n determinati n shall acquire private lands and subdivide these lands int h me l ts  r sale t b na
prevail ver the c urt¶s indings. (3C v. B ngb ng) ide tenants r ccupants, and t lab rers and l salaried empl yees  the
city. "hat nly a e c uld actually beneit r m the expr priati n  the
 3gA¶s entry int the pr perty ith the permissi n  SADC, its previ us pr perty d es n t diminish its public use character. 9t is simply n t p ssible t
ner, as n t  r the purp se  expr priating the pr perty. SADC all ed pr vide all at nce land and shelter  r all h need them ( 
3gA t enter the land n c nditi n that it sh uld pay a m nthly rental  310K.  ). 3ublic use n  includes the br ader n ti n  indirect public beneit
Als , it must be n ted that ater its entry, 3gA requested SADC t d nate r r advantage, including in particular, urban land re rm and h using.(3hil.
sell the land t the g vernment. 9ndeed, there as n intenti n n the part  C lumbian Ass c. v. H n. 3anis)
3gA t expr priate subject pr perty. Why did it ask permissi n? 9t c uld have
simply exercised its p er  eminent d main. ("an v. epublic)  "he idea that "public use" is strictly limited t clear cases  "use by the
public" has l ng been discarded. "hat nly a e  uld actually beneit r m
 "he undergr und tunnels imp se limitati ns n resp ndents¶ use  the the expr priati n  pr perty d es n t necessarily diminish the essence and
pr perty  r an indeinite peri d and deprive them  its rdinary use. Based character  public use. As l ng as the public has right  use, hether
up n the  reg ing, resp ndents are clearly entitled t the payment  just exercised by ne r many members, a "public advantage" r "public beneit"
c mpensati n.  tithstanding the act that petiti ner nly ccupies the sub accrues, suicient t c nstitute a public use. 9t may be limited t the
terrain p rti n, it is liable t pay n t merely an easement ee but rather the inhabitants  a small r restricted l cality, but must be in c mm n, and n t
ull c mpensati n  r land. "he nature  the easement practically deprives the  r a particular individual(s) al ne. (an sca v. CA)
ners  its n rmal beneicial use. (3C v. 9brahim)
 "he establishment  a pil t devel pment center  uld inure t the direct
"he "C misapplied the ruling in       by substituting such beneit and advantage  the pe ple  the 3r vince  Camarines Sur. Once
inlati n act r and r adjustment act r  r the +(++' $#)) %#  perati nal, the center  uld make available t the c mmunity invaluable
in the price t be paid as just c mpensati n in expr priati n cases.  here in rmati n and techn l gy n agriculture, ishery and the c ttage industry.
in the said decisi n may it be inerred that damages  r such delay in the "he h using pr ject als satisies the public purp se requirement  the
payment  just c mpensati n, ther than the legal interest pr vided by la, C nstituti n. (3r vince  Cam Sur v. CA)
may be granted in additi n r c nsidered in c mputing the am unt  just
c mpensati n such as the inlati n act r applied by the trial c urt. (3OC v.  9t is ell settled that expr priati n  private land  r urban devel pment
aglasang) and slum clearance is  r a public purp se even i the devel ped area is
© s ld t private h me ners, c mmercial irms, entertainment, and
9m */+%&  ± any use that is  utility, advantage r pr ductivity  r the service c mpanies. ( eyes v. HA)
beneit  the public.
 Ater scrutinizing the rec rds, the C urt  und that the basis  the rdinance
 ³3ublic se´ requirement is a lexible, c mprehensive and ev lving c ncept. as t beneit the elendres C mp und H me ners Ass ciati n, a private,
Whatever may be beneicially empl yed  r the general elare satisies this n npr it rganizati n, # the residents  Cani gan in general. 9t can be
requirement. "he c nstructi n  l c st h using is rec gnized as a public seen that the ass ciati n anted a private playgr und and recreati nal acility
purp se. 9t is made pursuant t the Sate¶s mandate t pr m te s cial justice and asikip¶s pr perty as the cl sest l t available. "hus, the taking as #
in all phases  nati nal devel pment.  a public character.  re ver, there as already an alternative acility  r
sp rts and recreati n in the area, the ain rest 3ark. (asikip v. 3asig)
&%+%=)* %#(.alls ithin the c nine  public use. As l ng as the

  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

3%#%#( d es n t entail a simple right ay, hich is rdinarily all ed by evidence  uld pr m te raud r bad aith,  r it  uld enable the deendant
the Civil C de. ining perati ns c nsist  a c nsiderable  c nstructi n and t keep the beneits already delivered by him r m the transacti n in litigati n,
depl yment that ill deinitely ust ners r ccupants  beneicial and, at the same time, evade the bligati ns, resp nsibilities r liabilities
nership  their lands. Once mining perati ns c mmence, there is already assumed r c ntracted by him thereby. (actan v. "udtud)
c mpensable taking.  re ver, mining is  r a public beneit. All requisites  !9m -* &$,# %# ± just and c mplete equivalent  the l ss, hich the
taking are there re present. (Dipidi v. garth Savers v. Ú zun) ner has t suer by reas n  the expr priati n. Sum equivalent t
market value. ust be direct payments and n t just dep sits.
 "he limited meaning attached t "public use" is "use by the public" r "public
empl yment," that "a duty must dev lve n the pers n r c rp rati n h lding -* $,# %#IÃair arket aalue (+) c nsequential Damages ()
pr perty appr priated by right  eminent d main t urnish the public ith c nsequential Beneits
the use intended, and that there must be a right n the part  the public, r
s me p rti n  it, r s me public r quasipublic agency n behal  the
%32+*."he market value  a piece  land is attained by a
public, t use the pr perty ater it is c ndemned." c nsiderati n  all th se acts, hich make it c mmercially valuable. "he rule
that sh uld be  ll ed is that: the market value  a pr perty 9s the price
 "he m re generally accepted vie sees "public use" as "public advantage, hich 9t ill bring hen 9t is ered  r sale by ne h desires, but is n t
c nvenience, r beneit, and that anything hich tends t enlarge the bliged t sell it, and is b ught by ne h us under n necessity  having it.
res urces, increase the industrial energies, and pr m te the pr ductive p er "he vie  the c mmissi ners h are disinterested land ners 9s given
 any c nsiderable number  the inhabitants  a secti n  the state, r greater eight than that  an rdinary tier  acts. (City  anila v. gstrada)
hich leads t the gr th  t ns and the creati n  ne res urces  r the
empl yment  capital and lab r, [hich] c ntributes t the general elare #+ *+ value must be as  the time  the iling, hich is als the
and the pr sperity  the h le c mmunity." 9n this jurisdicti n, "public use" time  the taking.
is deined as "hatever is beneicially empl yed  r the c mmunity." Mm Ãiling c mes later than the taking ± value at the taking
(Barangay v. CA) Mm aalue increased independently ± value is at the iling
Mm ust be determined n trial by c mmissi ners (g APCO v.
 "he p er  eminent d main is an inherent and indispensable p er  the 3ineda) but the rep rt is n t inal r c nclusive but
State. Als called the p er  expr priati n, it is described as ³the highest rec mmendat ry
and m st exact idea  pr perty remaining in the g vernment´ that may be Mm ay be in the  rm  m ney r g vernment b nds, as l ng as it
acquired  r s me public purp se thr ugh a meth d ³in the nature  a is certain
c mpuls ry sale t the State.´ By virtue  its s vereign character, the Mm Ãact rs t be c nsidered: nature  the pr perty, uture
exercise  the p er prevails ver the n nimpairment clause, and is clearly c nvertibility, change in value  pes , value  standing cr ps,
superi r t the inal and execut ry judgment rendered by a c urt in an time  taking
ejectment case. (anapat v. CA)
 " all  the c urt t change the am unt  the dep sit as it sees it, at any
 eaningul statements in the b dy  the -  arrant the c nclusi n time during the pr ceeding, the right  p ssessi n granted t the railr ad
that the expr priated pr perties  uld remain t be s until it as c nirmed c mpany might ell bec me illus ry and there re makes the c urt's acti n
that Pahug Airp rt as n l nger "    ". "his inerence urther implies unc nstituti nal. (anila ailr ad v. 3aredes)
that ater the Pahug Airp rt ceased its undertaking as such and the
expr priated l ts ere n t being used  r any airp rt expansi n pr ject, the  When the plainti takes p ssessi n /!the instituti n  the
rights "/" the expr priated P ts  s. 916 and 920 as beteen the State c ndemnati n pr ceedings, the value sh uld be ixed as  the time  the
and their  rmer ners, petiti ners herein, $* /1*%/+')>* ) taking  the said p ssessi n, n t the iling  the c mplaint, and the latter
9n execut ry c ntracts there is a ide ield  r raud because unless they be in sh uld be the basis  r the determinati n  the value. When the taking  the
riting there is n palpable evidence  the intenti n  the c ntracting pr perty inv lved &%#&%) %%  */ 1*#, the c mmencement
parties. "he statute has precisely been enacted t prevent raud. H ever, i a  ,&)%#( , it ill be the basis  the value  the land. (unicipality
c ntract has been t tally r partially per rmed, the exclusi n  par l  Daet v. CA)

ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

ver t categ ries  cases, t it: (1) "all petiti ns  r the determinati n 
 " determine just c mpensati n  r lands appr priated by the g vernment, just c mpensati n t land ners" and (2) "the pr secuti n  all criminal
the basis sh uld be the value  the land r price at the time it as taken r m enses under [ .A.  . 6657].
the ner and appr priated by the g vernment n t its uture p tential. (3C
v. CA) "he valuati n  pr perty in eminent d main is  #%++'>*)%&%+
!*#&%# hich cann t be vested in administrative agencies. ( epublic v. CA)
 9n an expr priati n pr ceeding, the c urt technically has the p er t
determine the just c mpensati n  r the pr perty. 3r visi ns hich encr ach $%#%#!!%$2"+*."he nature and character  the land
up n judicial prer gatives and renders the c urt inutile in a matter hich is at the time  its taking is the principal criteri n t determine just
reserved t it  r inal determinati n is v id. (g3ZA v. Dulay) c mpensati n t the land ner.

 "he nature  land bank b nd  rtiies the vie that resp ndent may be "he air market valuati n  land t be taken sh uld n t be based n the value
c mpelled t accept th se b nds at their ace value. Agrarian re rm cann t  adjacent l ts i the nature  the adjacent l ts is dierent r m the land
be ully realized ith ut the interventi n  the g vernment particularly in the s ught t be expr priated. (3C v. Hens n)
payment  just c mpensati n it is nly ith the supp rt  the g vernment
that payment  just c mpensati n t land ner may be realized. (addumba ¯)$%#% %"(*%)+%# !)$%#%#!>* &$,# %#
v. ÚS9S) ##&# %*%#+*#+ %% &#&+* %"*,#-*)%&%'
),%"%#($!%,(%"."he bjecti n that 3.D. 27 is
 Am ng the act r t be c nsidered in arriving at a air market value  the unc nstituti nal as it sets limitati ns n the judicial prer gative  determining
pr perty are the c st  acquisiti n, the current value  the pr perties, its just c mpensati n is beret  merit. "he determinati n  just c mpensati n
actual r p tential uses and tax declarati ns. C mmissi ner's rep rt alth ugh under 3.D.  . 27, like in Secti n 16 (d)  .A. 6657 r the CA 3 Pa, is n t
nly advis ry and persuasive and by n means inal, there re, may be used inal r c nclusive. nless b th the land ner and the tenantarmer accept
as basis  r determinati n  just c mpensati n. (Berkent tter v. CA) the valuati n  the pr perty by the Barri C mmittee n Pand 3r ducti n and
the DA , the parties may bring the dispute t c urt in rder t determine the
 A trial be re the C mmissi ners is indispensable t all  the parties t appr priate am unt  c mpensati n, a task unmistakably ithin the
present evidence n the issue  just c mpensati n there re, the prer gative  the c urt. (Sigre v. CA)
app intment  c mmissi ners is mandat ry requirement 9n expr priati n
cases  r it is a substantial right that may n t be d ne aay ith ut any ¯#++()*#>* &$,# %#% ##*()% &#%#*
reas n (eralc v. 3ineda/3C v. CA) 0,,%%# +)'/&$!%#+#)0&*.3etiti ner
alleges that the intended public use as rendered nugat ry by the
 ust c mpensati n means n t nly the c rrect determinati n  the am unt unreas nable just c mpensati n ixed by the c urt, hich is bey nd the
t be paid t the ner  the land but als the payment  the land ithin means  the intended beneiciaries  the s cialized h using pr ject. 
reas nable time r m its taking. (Pand Bank v. CA) ,*/+%&,*, ! &%+%=)* %#(,>&% #%##''
 9n light  the declared unc nstituti nality  3.D.  . 76, 3.D.  .1533 and )%$%#% )/'$*#!>* &$,# %#&* 
3.D.  . 42 ins ar as they sancti n executive determinati n  just !%0) 3etiti ner cann t be permitted t institute c ndemnati n pr ceedings
c mpensati n in expr priati n cases, %% %$,%"#'%( against resp ndents nly t aband n it later hen it inds the am unt  just
%$$)%,  %#! */>&,,'&&*%#( ,#)# c mpensati n unacceptable. (HA v. Heirs  9sidr Úuivel nd )
 ¯ $* /!%$+' (*#))#"+%)&$,+%#&% &%# 5
! *+ ‰?, .., there must be a dep sit ith the ati nal r 3r vincial 0)% ."he tax credit that is c ntemplated under the Seni r Citizens
"reasurer  the value  the subject pr perty as pr visi nally and pr mptly Act is a  rm  just c mpensati n  r private pr perty taken by the State  r
ascertained and ixed by the c urt having jurisdicti n  the pr ceedings. public use, n t a remedy  r taxes that ere err ne usly r illegally
(3anes v. a9SCA) assessed/c llected. (C9 v. Central Puz n)
%(%#+-*% )%&%#! ,&%+¯(%#* .Special Agrarian C urts,
hich are egi nal "rial C urts, are given riginal and exclusive jurisdicti n

 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

"ax credit is n t "ax deducti n. "he tax credit is the am unt representing the bstacle t the legislative arm  the g vernment. ( epublic v. De Knecht)
20 percent disc unt granted t a qualiied seni r citizen by all establishments
relative t their utilizati n  transp rtati n services, h tels and similar l dging  Ãixing just c mpensati n is a judicial uncti n. arket value al ne cann t
establishments, restaurants, drugst res, recreati n centers, theaters, cinema substitute the c urt's judgment 9n expr priati n pr ceeding. (an t c v. HA)
h uses, c ncert halls, circuses, carnivals and ther similar places  culture,
leisure and amusement, hich disc unt shall be deducted by the said  "here is n extreme necessity t inv lve judicial acti n i petiti ner has n t
establishments r m their gr ss inc me  r inc me tax purp ses and r m exhausted his administrative remedies (ilitante v. CA)
their gr ss sales  r valueadded tax r ther percentage tax purp ses. "ax
credit accrued during a iscal year hen n taxes ere paid may be applied t
succeeding iscal years. (C9 v. Bic landia)   J   ¯ 3¯      ¯ 
   ¯ 
¯¯ 
9n the event hen the g vernment is bliged t return the land expr priated 
and the private party is bliged t return the purchase price but the When d es la impair bligati ns  c ntracts:
g vernment ails t c mply, such ailure am unts t expr priati n ith ut just i.m 9 it changes the terms and c nditi ns  a legal c ntract ither as
c mpensati n. "he private party is entitled t c mpensati n in the  rm  t the time r m de  per rmance
rentals and interest. (actan v. rgell ) ii.m 9 it imp ses ne c nditi ns r dispenses ith th se expressed
iii.m 9 it auth rizes  r its satisacti n s mething dierent r m that
gxpr priati n pr ceedings initiated 56 years ag by the g vernment but n t pr vided in its terms.
acted up n (n payment  c mpensati n, n legislative appr val, and n
actual entry) is n t a valid expr priati n. 9t transers n rights t the A mere change in pr cedural remedies hich d es n t change the substance
expr priating party and d es n t deprive the ner  its auth rity ver the  the c ntract and hich still leaves a remedy  r en rcement d es n t
land. "he n npayment  just c mpensati n and the am unt  time that has impair bligati ns  c ntracts. (H me Building and P an Assn. v. Blaisdell;
passed may als be a bar t the g vernment because  laches. (San que v. utter v. gsteban)
epublic)
+%&.All c ntracts are made subject t an implied reservati n  the
(9m -*)%&%+ "%  the exercise  eminent d main is limited the pr tective p er  the state and that there re statutes, hich validly
 ll ing areas  c ncern: exercise this, reserved p er d es n t impair c ntracts (Del sari v. Del s
1.m adequacy  c mpensati n, Sant s)
2.m necessity  the taking, and
3.m public use character  the purp se  the taking 9n all cases:
gxcepti n: hen land is  r subdivisi n and resale  r s cial justice by šm 9mpairment sh uld nly reer t the remedy and n t t substantive
legislature. right,
šm State must p stp ne the en rcement  bligati n but cann t
 Ú vernment may n t caprici usly r arbitrarily ch se hat private pr perty destr y it by making the remedy utile and
sh uld be taken. Due pr cess must be served. With due rec gniti n  the šm "he alterati n r change that the ne legislati n desires t rite
p er  C ngress t designate the particular pr perty t bet taken and h  must n t be burdened ith restricti ns and c nditi ns that  uld
much there  may be c ndemned in the exercise  the p er  make the remedy hard t pursue.
expr priati n, it is still a judicial questi n hether in the exercise  such
c mpetence, the party adversely aected is a victim  partiality and "here re, p lice p er may nly be inv ked and justiied by: 1) an
prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista) emergency, 2) temp rary in nature, 3) can nly be exercised up n reas nable
c nditi ns.
 B3 340 eectively superseded the decisi n  the c urt and the trial c urt did 
n t c mmit any grave abuse  discreti n in dismissing the case pending "he c ntract may be altered validly i it inv lves the public interest, t hich
be re it n the gr und  the enactment  B3 340. Said decisi n is n private interests must yield lies a p stulate  the existing s cial rder. 9n

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 rman vs. Baltim re, the c urt stressed that every c ntract inv lving the
public interest suers inirmity and may be changed i required by public C nservat rs  a bank may verrule administrative acts  the management,
interest. (3hilippine aeterans Bank gmpl yees v. 3hilippine aeterans Bank) but it may n t interere r impair the per rmance  a validly perected
c ntract. (Ã39B v. CA)
Pegislati n appr priate t saeguard said interest may m diy r abr gate
c ntracts already in eect. Ã r n t nly are existing las read int c ntracts in C ntracts  lab r are impressed ith public interest and may be subject t
rder t ix the bligati ns as beteen the parties but the reservati n  state regulati n and must yield t the c mm n g d. atters inv lving the
essential attributes  s vereign p er is als read int c ntracts as a public interest and elare cann t be placed by c ntract bey nd the p er 
p stulate  the legal rder. the State t regulate and c ntr l. (CA v 3OgA)
" c me under the c nstituti nal pr hibiti n, the la must eect a change in
the rights  the parties ith reerence t each ther and n t ith reerence t Statutes that are curative and remedial in nature, h se purp se is t
n nparties. (Abella v. P C) saeguard the interest  the public (such as real estate buyers) r m
unscrupul us schemers must be given retr active eect and sh uld aect
3*#%&%,+  +*%#. alth ugh n t strictly an rdinance is a z ning c ntracts that are already in existence. "he C urt cann t all  the injustice
regulati n hich is a p lice p er measure hich the municipality has the that ill be r ught by a strictly pr spective applicati n  the la. 9 3.D. 957
p er t pass. (3resley v. BelAir aillage Assn. als held in Ortigas v. ÃgA"9 ere t exclude r m its c verage the m rtgage c ntract herein, the purp se
Bank)  3D. 957 ill be translated int a eeble exercise  p lice p er. (3B v.
"he requirement  n tice  the rescissi n under the aceda la d esn¶t Oice  the 3resident; gugeni v. Dril n)
change the time r m de  per rmance r imp se ne c nditi ns r
dispense ith the stipulati ns regarding the binding eect  the c ntract. "he n nimpairment clause  the C nstituti n must yield t the l tier
either d es it ithdra the remedy  r its en rcement. At m st, it merely purp ses targeted by the g vernment. ( v. CA citing gugeni v. Dril n in
pr vides  r a pr cedure in aid  the remedy  rescissi n. "here re, it justiying the regulat ry measures taken by the 3OgA inv lving Overseas
d esn¶t impair the bligati ns  a c ntract. (S9SKA Devel pment v. Oice  per rming artists)
the 3resident)
%$/+%&#  ,$% #)+%&# ($# are $
m 9ncludes ranchises but n t licenses r permits since these are special ,%"%+( granted by the State t qualiiedentities, and d n t vest in the
privileges, marriage c ntracts, public ice latter a permanent rirrev cable right. "hey may be validly amended,
m diied, replaced r rescinded by the Chie gxecutive hennati nal interests
A pr visi n  la pr hibiting the use  the all tted m dernizati n unds  r s require.
payment  a c ntract already entered int by the g vernment is vi lative  "hey are #)$)&#& ithin the purvie  the due pr cess 
the C nstituti nal 3r hibiti n n the passage  las that impair the bligati n laclause, merely instruments by hich the Stateregulates the utilizati n
 c ntracts. (3hilc nsa v. gnriquez) and disp siti n   rest res urces t the end that public elare is pr m ted.
(C& "imber v Alcala)
the State, in the exercise  p lice p er, may n t be precluded by the
restricti n n n nimpairment  c ntract r m altering, m diying and 3residential Warranty is n t a c ntract but a mere license r privilege. 9t has
amending the mining leases r agreements. (iners Ass c. v. Ãact ran) been c nsistently held that licenses, especially c ncerning timber harvest, are
neither pr perty n r pr perty rights and d n t create a vested right. All
"he unilateral cancellati n  the ranchise, hich has the status  a c ntract, licenses may be rev ked r rescinded by executive acti n. (Alvarez v. 39CO3
%*#%&%#(#)>* %!%/+&*  is int lerable in any system es urces)
here the ule  Pa prevails. (Pim v 3acquing)
A tax exempti n c ntained in the Certiicates  egistrati n is ar r m being
A la pr viding ne gr unds  r the ejectment  tenants cann t be applied c ntractual in nature in the sense that the n nimpairment clause  the
retr actively t existing c ntracts but is deemed t be read int the c ntracts C nstituti n can rightly be inv ked. ( epublic v. Cagui a)
hen the lease is reneed. (uarez v CA)

-6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

"he Central bank may prevent the shareh lders  a bank under  5
c nservat rship r m c llecting dividends i public interest s requires. 3ublic 89 ¯       ¯ 
    33  

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

  ¯ ¯    


3
    
  3¯  ¯   ¯ ¯  3 ¯ 
"he p er  a bank¶s c nservat r cann t extend t the rev cati n  existing    
 ¯
    
  ¯ 
valid c ntracts. 9 the legislature itsel cann t rev ke a valid existing c ntract, ¯

    
     3      
h  can it delegate such a n nexisting p er t a mere c nservat r?        ¯   ¯ 7     ¯
(3r ducers Bank  the 3hil v. P C)    
  
859   
  ¯3¯  ¯
9ncentive pay r beneit is in the nature  a b nus hich is n t a demandable    3¯     ¯   
  ¯   
r en rceable bligati n. "he  rced reund, pursuant t a la r an executive ¯ ¯  3     ¯  ¯ 
rder,  an incentive pay hich as r ngly released, d es n t c nstitute an  33¯      3¯ 
3 
   ¯ 
impairment  c ntracts. (Blaquera v. Alcala)  
89 ¯  
    ¯3   ¯   ¯ 

#&*+00$,%# " * !#&% 00$,%#       ? ¯¯3 ¯ ¯ 
C ntractual tax exempti ns must n t be c nused ith tax exempti ns 3
granted under ranchises. A ranchise partakes the nature  a grant hich is 8-9 ¯ ¯ 
¯¯ ¯  

bey nd the purvie  the n nimpairment clause  the C nstituti n. nder  ¯  
      ¯   ¯   3 ¯    ¯
the C nstituti n, a ranchise is alays under the c nditi n that it shall be  ¯¯ 
 3 
     3¯   ¯ 
subject t amendment, alterati n r repeal by C ngress hen the c mm n ¯  
¯3 
g d s requires. C ntractual tax exempti ns, h ever, may inv ke the n n 
impairment clause. (g APCO v. 3r vince  Paguna) 
¯* )%+#" %(%#
A license vi lating pr visi n  la is v id ± any rev cati n there  r m Questi ning initiated by la en rcement icer ater ne is taken int
declarati n  nullity d es n t vi late n nimpairment clause. ( epublic v cust dy r deprived  his reed m  acti n in any signiicant ay
sem r) %( : (1) t remain silent (2) t c unsel and (3) t be in rmed  rights

gnd rsement billb ards  an elect ral candidate may be regulated/rem ved ** ight t c unsel is intended t preclude the slightest c erci n as  uld lead
by COgPgC ith ut vi lating the n nimpairment clause as a valid exercise the accused t admit s mething alse. "he layer sh uld never prevent the
 p lice p er because the billb ards assumed partisan p litical character accused r m reely and v luntarily speaking the truth (3e ple v. Payus )
hen he iled  r candidacy. (Chavez v COgPgC)
"he rules n cust dial investigati ns d n t apply hen the c nessi n is
A m rtgage inv lving inalienable land is v id ab initi and cann t be the made t a private individual because that situati n  uld n t be ne  a
s urce  rights. "he n nimpairment clause may n t be inv ked, because the cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. "aat)
state¶s restraint n private individuals r m h lding nership r vested rights
n the said land (Ã rest) is a valid exercise  p lice p er. (Pand Bank  the "he presumpti n  regularity  icial acts d es n t apply t ³incust dy
3hilippines v. epublic  the 3hilippines, represented by the Direct r  c nessi ns.´ 9n rder  r it t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh  that
Pands) the c nstituti nal saeguards ere bserved in btaining the c nessi n.
(3e ple v. " lentin )

  
 ¯          ¯ ¯ .-¯ 3%#) %( 
   ¯ ¯¯  ¯ ¯  ¯ ¯     ¯3* /&%)
 ¯  ¯ 
    Y u have a right t remain silent
  Anything y u say r d ill be used against y u in c urt

-Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 Y u have a right t c nsult ith a layer and t have him during the phase, hen the enquiry is under the c ntr l  the p lice icers.
interr gati n.
9 y u are an indigent, a layer ill be app inted t represent y u. Sec. 12(1) DOgS O" apply t pers ns under preliminary investigati n r
already charged in c urt ith a crime (pe ple v. Ays n)
. gven i the pers n c nsents t anser questi ns ith ut the assistance 
c unsel, the m ment he asks  r a layer at any p int in the investigati n, 0 even ater the charges are iled, i the p lice still attempt t extract
the interr gati n must cease until an att rney is present. c nessi ns r admissi ns utside  judicial supervisi n, secti n 12(1) sh uld
still apply.
 9 the  reg ing pr tecti ns and arnings are n t dem nstrated during the
trial t have been bserved by the pr secuti n, n evidence btained as a +%&%#.,
result  the interr gati n can be used against him. (iranda v. Ariz na) When petiti ner as identiied by the c mplainant at the p lice lineup, he
had n t been held yet t anser  r a criminal ense. "he p lice lineup is
"hese rights bec me available hen the investigati n is n l nger a general n t a part  the cust dial inquest; hence, he as n t yet entitled t c unsel.
inquiry int an uns lved crime but has begun t  cus n a particular suspect, "hus, it as held that hen the pr cess had n t yet shited r m the
the suspect has been taken int p lice cust dy, the p lice carry ut a pr cess investigat ry t the accusat ry as hen p lice investigati n d es n t elicit a
 interr gati n that lends itsel t eliciting incriminating statements; usually c nessi n the accused may n t yet avail  the services  his layer.
ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy r therise deprived  his
reed m  acti n in any signiicant ay. Since petiti ner in the c urse  his 9dentiicati n in the p lice lineup had n t
yet been held t anser  r a criminal ense, he as, there re, n t deprived
 ¯     ¯¯¯ (3. v. "an)  his right t be assisted by c unsel because the&&* ' pr cess had n t
1. Ater a pers n has been taken int cust dy yet set in.
2. When a pers n is therise deprived  his reed m  acti n in any
signiicant ay (3. v. Cagui a) While the C urt inds n real need t a rd a suspect the services  c unsel
3. When the investigati n is being undertaken by the g vernment ith respect during a p lice lineup, the m ment there is a m ve r even an urge  said
t a criminal ense. (9n 3. v.  rad , a baranggay captain¶s c nversati n investigat rs t elicit admissi ns r c nessi ns r even plain in rmati n
ith the accused is part  an ng ing investigati n. But in 3. v. Zuela,hen hich may appear inn cent r inn cu us at the time, r m said suspect, he
the accused talked ith a may r AS COÃ9DA" and n t as a la en rcement sh uld then and there be assisted by c unsel, unless he aives the right, but
icer, his admissi n is admissible) the aiver shall be made in riting and in the presence  c unsel. (Úamb a
4. Signing  arrest rep rt and b king sheets (3. v. Sim n) v. udge Cruz)
n t until there is a p lice investigati n.
A pers n already under cust dial investigati n h is placed in a p lice lineup
gx: a pers n g ing thr ugh an audit d es n t have these rights, a pers n is entitled t Secti n 12 rights. (3e ple v. acam)
presenting himsel  r his admissi n (v luntary surrender), 3 lice line up
(unless there is a m ve t elicit admissi n), admissi n t s me ne n t a As a rule, an accused is n t entitled t the assistance  c unsel in a p lice
public icer (verbal c nessi ns t a radi ann uncer) lineup c nsidering that such is usually n t a part  the cust dial inquest.
H ever, the case at bar is dierent inasmuch as accusedappellant  
** A 7438 has extended the C nstituti nal guarantee t situati ns in hich +)' *#) &* )%+ %#" %(%# hen these ut c urt
an individual has n t been  rmally arrested but has merely been ³invited´  r identiicati ns ere c nducted by the p lice.
questi ning. (3e ple v. D mantay; 3e ple v. "an) We have thus ruled that any identiicati n  an unc unseled accused made in
a p lice lineup, r in a sh up  r that matter,   !     !
      <       is inadmissible as evidence against him. H ever
 "he criminal pr cess includes the investigati n  t the iling  charges, the inadmissibility  these ut c urt identiicati ns d es n t render the in
the preliminary investigati n and investigati n ater charges are iled, and the c urt identiicati n  accusedappellant inadmissible  r being ruits  the
peri d  r trial. "he rights under Secti n 12(1) ere c nceived  r the irst p is n us tree. (3e ple v. gsc rdial)

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

5.m Signed r thumb marked.


0&,%# 
"he accused as c nvicted n the strength  the testim nies  3  Advice  3 licepr vided c unsel, telling the accused that tit  uld be better
eyeitnesses h p sitively identiied him as the gunman. H ever, he  r him t speak r tell the truth d es n t urnish any inducement, t render a
vig r usly assails his ut c urt identiicati n by these eyeitnesses. c nessi n thereby btained   threats r pr mises are applied.

sing the t tality  circumstances test, the alleged irregularities cited by the Úeneral ule: gxtrajudicial statements, as a rule, are admissible against their
accused did n t result in his misidentiicati n n r as he denied due pr cess. respective declarants pursuant t the rule that the act, declarati n r missi n
"here is n thing r ng in Pein ¶s identiicati n  the accused in an  a party as t a relevant act may be given in evidence against him.
un ccupied h use in à rbes 3ark. "he rec rds reveal that this m de as
res rted t by the auth rities  r security reas ns. "he Pein s reused t have 0 the rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence nly against the
the identiicati n at the B9 ice as it as cramped ith pe ple and ith high pers n making it, rec gnizes several excepti ns:
security risk. Pein ¶s ear  r his saety as n t irrati nal. He and his #+&2%#( #! %#  When several pe ple are charged ith an
c mpani ns had been sh t in c ld bl d in ne  the exclusive, supp sedly ense, and there c uld have been O c llusi n beteen them regarding their
sae subdivisi ns in the metr p lis. c nessi ns, the act that statements are in all material respects identical, is
c nirmat ry  the c nessi n  the c deendants, and is )$% %/+
"here is n hard and ast rule as t the place here suspects are identiied by against ther pe ple implicated therein. "hey are als admissible as
itnesses. 9dentiicati n may be d ne in pen ield. 9t is ten d ne in circumstantial evidence against the pers ns     t sh  the
h spitals hile the crime and the criminal are still resh in the mind  the pr bability  the latter¶s actual participati n in the c mmissi n  the crime.
victim (3e ple v. "eehankee)
9llegal C nessi ns/Admissi ns are inadmissible against the s urce  the
 0&,%#  (1) investigati n by an administrative b dy, (2) c nessi n B " they are admissible against the pers n    the
sp ntane us statements, (3) audit examinati n, (4) n t in p lice cust dy, (5) c nstituti nal pr hibiti n.
marked m ney, (6) b king sheets, (7) taking  pictures, (8) incidental t a
laul arrest, (9) b dy examinati n, (10) preliminary investigati n 9t is but natural  r ne h surrenders t the p lice t give reas n r
explanati n  r his act  surrendering. 9 he v luntarily admits the killing and
 "he c nstituti nal right extends nly t testim nial c mpulsi n and n t hen surrendered precisely because he anted t admit t the killing, the
the b dy  the accused is pr p sed t be examined. c nstituti nal rights t be in rmed  his right t silence and t c unsel may
gx: parain test n t be inv ked. (3e ple v. "aylaran)

ahinay Case: has right t c mmunicate ith layer and amily, has right t %(/%#!$)!% %( 
aive any rights pr vided it is v luntary, kn ingly and intelligently "he right t be in rmed must be presumed t c ntemplate the transmissi n
 a meaningul in rmati n rather than just the cerem nial and perunct ry
*1234   
 ! ©     recitati n  an abstract c nstituti nal principle. "he icer is n t nly duty
 b und t tell the pers n the right the latter is entitled, but als t explain their
¯)$% %# ± acts, declarati ns r missi ns  the party as t a relevant act. eects in practical terms. (3e ple v. am s, 3e ple v. Cagui a)
#! %# ± declarati n  the accused ackn ledging his guilt t the
ense charged, r any ense necessarily included therein. "he right  a pers n t be in rmed implies a c rrelative bligati n n the
part  the p lice investigat r t explain, and c ntemplates an eective
" be admissible: c mmunicati n that results in understanding hat is c nveyed. (3e ple v.
1.m C nessi n must be v luntary, icandr ; 3e ple v. 3inlac)
2.m ade ith the assistance  c mpetent and independent c unsel,
3.m "he c nessi n must be express, %($,##)#),#)#*# +
4.m 9t must be in riting, A layer is deemed engaged by the accused hen he(accused) never raised

-- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

any bjecti n against the layer¶s app intment.  Only reers t extrajudicial c nessi n r admissi n made during cust dial
"he accused may reject the c unsel ch sen  r him and ask  r an ther ne investigati n, evidence gathered ith ut c unsel is admissible.
gx: accused   ut here the murder eap n is ith ut c unsel
When the accused ³never raised any bjecti n against the layer¶s admissible. But i evidence is  und thr ugh an extrajudicial c nessi n
app intment during the c urse  the investigati n and the accused thereater ith ut C unsel inadmissible
subscribes t the veracity  his statement be re the searing icer, the
accused may n  be deemed t have engaged the layer pr vided by the à r in cust dy c nessi ns t be admissible, the pr secuti n must sh  that
investigat rs. (3e ple v. erez; 3e ple v. Suarez) the c nstituti nal saeguards ere bserved in btaining the c nessi n.
(agt t v. anguera)
"he c urt, during trial, is n t duty b und t appraise the accused that he has
the right t remain silent. 9t is c unsel that sh uld claim the right  r him. 9 9nracti ns  the ³iranda ights´ render inadmissible ³ nly the extrajudicial
c unsel d es n t claim the right and calls the accused t the itness stand, © r   made during the cust dial investigati n. "he
then he aives the right t be silent. (3e ple v. "ampus) admissibility  ther evidence, pr vided they are relevant t the issue and is
n t therise excluded by la r rules, is n t aected even i btained r
Wh are n t independent c unsel: taken in the c urse  cust dial investigati n. (3e ple v. alimit)
a.m Special c unsel, public r private pr secut r, c unsel  the
p lice, r a municipal att rney h se interest is adverse t that Where a bl dstained knie is  und as a c nsequence  unc unseled
 the accused. (3e ple v. Ãabr ) extrajudicial c nessi n, the knie is inadmissible as evidence because it is the
b.m A ay r (3e ple v. "alman) ruit  a c nstituti nally inirm interr gati n. (Abale v. 3e ple)
c.m A baranggay captain (3e ple v. " maquin)
d.m Any ther h se interest may be adverse t that  the accused What the C nstituti n pr hibits is the use  physical r m ral c mpulsi n t
ext rt c mmunicati n r m the accused, but n t an inclusi n  his b dy in
!!&%"#)%(%+#&*# +)!%#) evidence hen it may be material. (Úutang v. 3e ple: n the admissibility 
"he right t c unsel as denied Sunga during his executi n  gxhibit ³A´ urine samples as evidence)
admissi n be re the p lice n the gr und that the c unsel h assisted him,
Att. Agustin cam ra, as the City Pegal Oicer  3uert 3incesa. ay a receipt  r pr perty seized  
    

   be admissible in evidence against him?  , this is tantam unt t
"he right t c unsel inv lves m re than just the presence  a layer in the an extrajudicial c nessi n.
c urtr m r the mere pr p unding  standard questi ns and bjecti ns;
rather it means an eicient and decisive legal assistance and n t a simple Signature in a b king sheet and arrest rep rt O" an admissi n  guilt;
perunct ry representati n.(3e ple v. Sunga) nly pr ves the act  the arrest.

%"! %(  $$*#%'(%#  +!.#&%$%#%#


 ust be d ne in riting and in the presence  c unsel. "he right n t t be c mpelled t be a itness against himsel may be inv ked
 "he state must bring the pers n t a place here there is a layer n t nly in criminal pr ceedings but als in all ther types  suits, including
 reiture cases. What is c ntr lling is n t the character  the suit but the
When the accused stated that that he needed n c unsel, that he as g ing t nature  the pr ceedings. Sh uld a pers n be c mpelled t be a itness
tell the truth, and did n t ask  r a layer, his c nessi n is inadmissible. "he against himsel, that pers n sh uld be pr vided ith immunity immunity
auth rities ailed t apprise him  his right t c unsel hen he r te the r m using the itness¶ c mpelled testim ny and its ruits in any manner in
c nessi n. An accused¶s aiver  his rights and signiicati n  illingness t c nnecti n ith the criminal pr secuti n  the itness and immunity t the
make a c nessi n are cerem nies that require the presence  c unsel. itness r m pr secuti n  r an ense t hich his c mpelled testim ny
( rales v.  ncupa; 3e ple v. Úalit; Demaisip v. CA) relates. 9 a pers n h testiied is n t ered immunity be re they ere
 questi ned, alth ugh that pers n did n t inv ke his right against sel
¯)$% %/+#)#)$% %/+"%)#& incriminati n in such pr ceeding, his testim ny  uld be inadmissible as

-r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

evidence. (Úalman v. 3amaran)


"here is #c nstituti nal right t bail hen the  ll ing c nditi ns c ncur:
&%#5859*!&"%+#&%#%$%)%#K 1.m Accused is charge ith an ense punishable by     
3r hibited because they vitiate truth and assault the dignity  the pers n. 2.m gvidence against him is str ng. (agn v Abbas)
 ** Ater c nvicti n, bail is   
hile the case is n appeal
   ¯   7    ¯   

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


      ¯    6¯ ¯  3¯


 ¯    ¯ ¯ 3¯  Since the l ss  right (t bail) depends up n the quantum  evidence against
       
    
 ¯¯       him, the l ss  the right can be determined 
 ©    (arc s v.
 7 ¯ ¯    Cruz)

%+ ± m de sh rt  c ninement hich  uld, ith reas nable certainty, 0)%%#  .
insure the attendance  the accused at his trial; takes the  rm  a dep sit  On December 10, 1948, the  Úeneral Assembly ad pted the niversal
m ney r its equivalent as a guarantee  attendance. Ãailure t appear  uld Declarati n  Human ights in hich the right t lie, liberty and all the ther
 reit the dep sit. undamental rights  every pers n ere pr claimed. "hus, in ej  v.
Direct r  3ris ns,  %#(#%#(/%+, ,&%"),
*,  +)*#)# %*%#,%#&%,+  !%#
1.m " h n r the presumpti n  inn cence until his guilt is pr ve bey nd &+%#,!+!+#)
reas nable d ubt
2.m " enable him t prepare hi deenses ith ut being subject t punishment 9 bail can be granted in dep rtati n cases, e see n justiicati n hy it
pri r t c nvicti n. (C rtes v. Catral) sh uld n t als be all ed in extraditi n cases. Pikeise, c nsidering that 
 ,,+% ),%#&  % # #'%&##
Bail has neither   n r    purp se. (Almeda v. aillaluz) /%#"2)%#0)%%#&  . Ater all, b th are administrative
pr ceedings here the inn cence r guilt  the pers n detained is n t in
 Available t all pers ns detained, unless ense is punishable by eclusi n issue.
3erpetua r Death hen the evidence against the accused is str ng (Bail is a
matter  discreti n  the c urts, s even pers ns h are n t entitled CA Obvi usly, an extraditi n pr ceeding, hile stensibly administrative, bears all
be granted bail) earmarks  a criminal pr cess. ¯,#%+0)%$'/ */>&)
 ,+#() %#!+%/'#)!&)# !
As a necessary c nsequence  the nature  a bail b nd, a pers n admitted t )$#)%#( !++%#(,&)%#( ³"emp rary detenti n´ may
bail may be prevented by the c urt r m leaving the c untry. A bail b nd is be a necessary step in the pr cess  extraditi n, but the length  time  the
intended t make a pers n available anytime he is needed by the c urt. detenti n sh uld be reas nable. ec rds sh  that un z )/#
(an t c, r. v. CA) )%#)!"859' %*"%#(/#&#"%&)!
 #'&%$
9mp sing bail in excessive am unt c uld render meaningless the right t bail.
Setting the ball in the am unt  the civil liability is excessive. (Yap v. CA) "he timeh n red principle      demands that the
3hilippines h n r its bligati ns under the gxtraditi n "reaty it entered int
 ith the H ng K ng Special Administrative egi n. H ever, it d es n t
%$%%# #%(/%+ necessarily mean that in keeping ith its treaty bligati ns, the 3hilippines
(1) pers n claiming the right must be under actual detenti n; sh uld diminish a p tential extraditee¶s rights t lie, liberty, and due pr cess.
(2) Úenerally, the right is available nly t criminal cases  re s , here these rights are guaranteed als by internati nal c nventi ns,
*** Bail d es n t grant the right t leave the c untry. t hich the 3hilippines is a party. We sh uld n t deprive an extraditee  his

-‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

right t apply  r bail, pr vided that a certain standard  r the grant is present evidence
satisact rily met. (Ú vernment  HK v. Olalia) 3) Decide i the evidence  guilt is str ng
4) 9 the evidence is n t str ng, grant bail (Basc v. apatal )
**gxtraditi n is a criminal pr ceeding. Hence, since bail is available nly in (gvidence is str ng hen there is evident guilt r a great presumpti n  guilt)
criminal pr ceedings, a resp ndent in an extraditi n pr ceeding is n t entitled 
t bail. He sh uld apply  r bail in the c urt here he ill be tried. ( nited !"%)#E, *$,%#(
States v. udge 3uruganan, 2002) 0m Clear, str ng evidence hich leads a ellguarded dispassi nate
 judgement t the c nclusi n that the ense has been c mmitted as

& )$%#%#(/%+ charged, that the accused is the guilty agent, and that he ill pr bably be
1.m Ability t p st bail punished capitally i the la is administered
2.m ature  the ense 0m Str ng, clear, and c nvincing t an unbiased judgment and excludes all
3.m imp sable penalty, reas nable pr bability  any ther c nclusi n.
4.m character and reputati n  the accused, 0m "est is n t hether the evidence establishes guilt bey nd reas nable
5.m health  the accused, d ubt but rather hether it sh s evident guilt r a great presumpti n 
6.m strength  the evidence, guilt. (3e ple v. udge Cabral)
7.m pr bability  appearing  r the trial,
8.m  reiture  b nds, # &*%#) #, #"%)#&
9.m hether accused as a ugitive hen arrested, gven hen the pr secut r reuses t adduce evidence in pp siti n t the
10.m 9 under b nd in an ther case. (Sunga v. udge Salud) applicati n t grant and ix bail, the c urt may ask the pr secuti n such
 questi ns as  uld ascertain the strength  the state¶s evidence r judge the
3%+%'*#)*3 ++.A s ldier under c urt martial d es n t enj y adequacy  the am unt  bail. (" lentin v. udge Camana , r.)
the right t bail because  the disciplinary structure  the military and 
because s ldiers are all ed the iduciary right t bear arms and can cause &(#%=#& ± A means, aside r m bail, here an accused may btain
great hav c. Ãurtherm re, traditi n has rec gnized the n nexistence  the pr visi nal liberty.
right t bail. gqual pr tecti n cann t be inv ked because it nly applies t
th se h are equally situated. (C mmendad r v. de ailla) 9t is an bligati n  rec rd entered int be re a c urt guaranteeing the
 appearance the accused  r trial. 9t is in the nature  a c ntract beteen
0& %"%+.Where the right t bail exists, it sh uld n t be rendered the surety and the State. (3e ple v. Abner)
nugat ry by requiring a sum that is excessive. 9 the C nstituti n did n t 
pr hibit his, the right t bail bec mes meaningless. "he s le permissible 
uncti n  m ney bail is t assure the accused's presence at trial, and   - 89     ¯     ¯  
 ¯
declared that bail set at a higher igure than an am unt reas nably calculated  3¯

    
¯
t ulill thus purp se is "excessive"(De Pa Camara v. gnage) 859  ¯  3¯       ¯  ¯ 
  3     ¯    ¯ ¯
A judge cann t require a strictly cash b nd and disall  an attempt t p st a -         ¯   3 
 ¯      
surety b nd  r pr visi nal liberty. "he burden imp sed by requiring a strictly 
3
   ¯  ¯ ¯ 
   ¯ ¯ 
cash b nd can make the bail c nstituti nally ³excessive.´ (Almeda v. aillaluz) ¯ ¯  3   ¯ ¯  3¯ ¯ ¯   ¯
  3   
¯ 
¯¯  ¯ 3 
m "he accused must inv ke such right then bail hearing ill c mmence          ¯¯
    ¯  
 ll ing due pr cess   
      ¯
   ¯
 
¯ ¯ 3  ¯ 3¯     ¯   
*% !%+-*)(%##¯,,+%&%#!%+ ¯ 
   ¯     ¯  ¯   
1)  tiy the pr secut r  the hearing  r bail  
¯  
¯  ¯¯  - 
¯
2) C nduct a hearing  r such applicati n, even i pr secuti n d es n t 

-  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

¯ %( !¯&&* ) Due pr cess  la demands that in all criminal pr secuti ns (here the
*&  accused stands t l se either his lie r his liberty), the accused shall be
m A judge may replace an ther judge in rendering decisi n even i he nly entitled t , am ng thers, a trial. "he trial c ntemplated by the due pr cess
partially heard the testim ny  the itnesses clause  the C nstituti n, in relati n t the Charter as a h le, is a trial by
m "he replacement judge may base his judgment c mpletely n c ld rec rd udicial 3r cess, n t by executive r military pr cess. ilitary C mmissi ns r
be re him, in the same manner appellate c urts d . (3e ple v. araj s) "ribunals, by hatever name they are called, are n t c urts ithin the
m Since administrative agencies are n t b und t  ll  the rules  criminal 3hilippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. ilitary)
pr cedure, they may n t imp se criminal penalties. (Sc ty¶s Department
St re v. icaller)  *$,%#!##&#&
m ³due pr cess´ = that pr cedure established by la t ully pr tect lie,  With ut c nvicti n, a pers n is entitled t reinstatement.
liberty, and pr perty  the citizens  the State. (uňez v.
Sandiganbayan) B3 52: ³"he iling  charges  r the c mmissi n  such crimes be re a civil
c urt  military tribunal ater preliminary investigati n shall be   © 
.%(#$#)*% !-*)( evidence  such act (disqualiicati n)´ is invalid because the   © 
1.m 9n rm right t c unsel be re arraignment evidence makes the accused suer as i already guilty even be re trial.
2.m Ask i he desires aid  c unsel (Dumla v. C melec)
3.m Úrant reas nable time t d s
4.m 9 n ne, c urt assigns a de ici 3reventive suspensi n is n t a penalty there re n vi lati n  right t be
presumed inn cent
3%+%'%/*#+
 SC, generally, has n supervis ry auth rity ver military c urts. (Kur da v.  "here are s me cases in hich prima acie evidence establishes a rati nal
aland ni) c nnecti n t guilt.
i.e. 9n alversati n, inability t pr duce the m ney entrusted t public icial,
But by virtue  "he ati nal Security C de (3D 1498), the SC d es n t alth ugh prima acie evidence  guilt, may still be dispr ved by c ntradict ry
revie decisi ns  military c mmissi ns but  the C urt  ilitary Appeals in evidence (shits the burden  pr  t the accused)
cases appealed t the later by military c mmissi ns. (Buscayn & Sis n v. 
ilitary C mmissi ns) "he State, having the right t declare hich acts are criminal, ithin certain
elldeined limitati ns, has the right t speciy hat act(s) shall c nstitute a
 ilitary "ribunals cann t try civilians, even i civil c urts are cl sed during crime, as ell as hat pr  shall c nstitute prima acie evidence  guilt, and
artial Pa. Civilians are entitled t udicial pr cess. ilitary "ribunals bel ng then t put up n the deendant the burden  sh ing that such act(s) are
t the gxecutive department. (Olaguer v. ilitary C mmissi n) inn cent and are n t c mmitted ith any criminal intent r intenti n. ( S v.
Puling)
 Once jurisdicti n is acquired, a pers n h is dr pped r m the military can
still be tried by military tribunals. urisdicti n, nce acquired, is n t l st up n "he pr visi n  the glecti n C de that the iling  charges  r the
the instance  the parties but c ntinue until terminati n  the case. (Abadilla c mmissi n  crimes be re a civil r military c urt shall be prima acie
v. am s) evidence  the c mmissi n  an act  disl yalty t the state is  , as it
c ndemns a pers n be re he is inally heard. (Dumla v. C melec)
a military c mmissi n r tribunal cann t try and exercise jurisdicti n, even
during the peri d  martial la, ver civilians  r enses allegedly "he presumpti n  inn cence may be verc me by a c ntrary presumpti n
c mmitted by them as l ng as the civil c urts are pen and uncti ning, and  unded up n the experience  human c nduct. Pegislature may pr vide  e
that any judgment rendered by such b dy relating t a civilian is null and v id   ©  evidence  guilt  the accused and shit the burden  pr 
 r lack  jurisdicti n n the part  the military tribunal c ncerned. (Olaguer pr vided there be a rati nal c nnecti n beteen the acts pr vided and the
v. ilitary C mmissi n) ultimate act presumed. (3e ple v. ing a; Banares v. CA)

-ü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

%(/ ) Sten graphic n tes sh ing that the c urts ailed t er c unsel t the
+$# !%(/) accused is n t en ugh t verturn a c nvicti n. "he presumpti n is that the
1.m " be present at the trial c urts  ll ed pr per pr cedure.
2.m ight t c unsel
3.m ight t an impartial judge "he right t c unsel is necessary and indispensable:
4.m ight t c nr ntati n  During Cust dial 9nvestigati n t prevent the use  duress and ther undue
5.m ight t c mpuls ry pr cess t secure attendance  itness inluence in extracting c nessi ns.
  gven ater the c nvicti n  the accused; even hen the case is n appeal.
%(/, #.%+%#¯/ #%  When accused gives a qualiied plea.
Sc pe  right t be present at the trial ± beteen arraignment and  When a s rn statement as extracted r m the accused.
pr mulgati n  sentence (3e ple v. H lgad )
C nditi n  r aiver ± ater arraignment, he may be c mpelled t appear  r
identiicati n Duties imp sed n the judge by this right:
9 the deendant appears ith ut c unsel he must be in rmed by the c urt
1*% % !%+%#¯/ #% that he has a right t have c unsel be re being arraigned, and must be asked
1.m Accused already arraigned i he desires the aid  c unsel. 9 he desires and is unable t empl y c unsel
2.m Duly n tiied  the trial the c urt must assign c unsel t deend him. "his is a right hich the
3.m Ãailure t appear is unjustiiable deendant sh uld n t be deprived , and the ailure  the c urt t assign
(3arada v. aeneraci n) c unsel r, ater c unsel has been assigned, t require him t per rm this
 duty by appearing and deending the accused  uld be suicient cause  r the
C nstituti n n  unqualiiedly permits trial in absentia even  capital reversal  the case. (3e ple v. Úimen )
enses, pr vided that (1) ©      
       
©     © 9 ©   
    ©       ight t c unsel is right t & © c unsel. (eaning member  the Bar)
  (2)   & ©
       ©       
    ©      . 3rearraignment duties  the udge
eas n  r requiring the presence  the accused, despite his aiver, is, i 1.m t in rm the accused that he has the right t have his n c unsel
all ed t be absent in all the stages  the pr ceedings ith ut giving the be re being arraigned;
3e ple's itnesses the pp rtunity t 9dentiy him in c urt, he may in his 2.m ater giving such in rmati n, t ask accused hether he desires the aid
deense say that he as never 9dentiied as the pers n charged in the  c unsel;
in rmati n and, there re, is entitled t an acquittal. (3e ple v. 3residing 3.m i he s desires t pr cure the services  c unsel, the c urt must grant
udge) him reas nable time t d s ; and
 4.m i he s desires t have c unsel but is unable t empl y ne, the c urt
*       the accused in case  his n nappearance ater must assign c unsel  ©  t deend him. (3e ple v. Agbayani)
arraignment despite due n tice simply means that he thereby aives his right
t meet the itnesses ace t ace, am ng thers. An express aiver  "he duty t app int a c unsel  ©  is mandat ry nly t the time 
appearance ater arraignment is  the same eect. H ever, such aiver  arraignment.  such duty exists here the accused has pr ceeded t
appearance and trial in absentia d es n t mean that the pr secuti n is arraignment and then trial ith a c unsel  his n ch ice. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
thereby deprived  its right t require the presence  the accused  r
purp ses  identiicati n by its itnesses, hich is vital  r the c nvicti n  At m st, the app intment  a c unsel  ©  in a situati n like the present
the accused. (Carred v. 3e ple) case [c unsel  c nsistently ailed t appear  r cr ss examinati n]
 uld be discreti nary ith the trial c urt, hich discreti n ill n t be
interered ith in the absence  grave abuse. (Pibuit v. 3e ple)
%(*# +
C unsel de Oici  may be given by the c urts during arraignment. "here is n denial  the right t c unsel hen a c unsel  ©  as

- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

app inted during the absence  the accused¶s c unsel  (3e ple v. charging simple rebelli n. "he c mplaint  petiti ner¶s c unsel that he is
Parraňaga) charged ith a crime that d es n t exist in the statute b ks, hile technically
c rrect s ar as the c urt has ruled that rebelli n may n t be c mplexed ith
An accused h s ught t ithdra his appeal t the SC sh uld n t be ther enses c mmitted n the ccasi n there , must there re be
all ed n the gr und that he cann t a rd c unsel. He sh uld be given dismissed as a mere light  rhet ric. "he in rmati n d es indeed charge the
c unsel  ©  instead. (3e ple v. i ) petiti ner ith a crime deined and punished by the evised 3enal C de:
simple rebelli n. (gnrile v. Salazar)
%(/#!$)
"he bject  a ritten accusati n An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296  the 3C may be c nvicted
1.m Ãurnish the accused ith such a descripti n  the charge against him under Art 335 pr vided that the in rmati n alleges acts under Art. 335. the
as ill enable him t make a deense. real questi n r issue is hether r n t he per rmed the acts alleged in the
2.m Avail himsel  his c nvicti n r acquittal  r pr tecti n against in rmati n in the manner therein set  rth. 9 he did, it is  n c nsequence
urther pr secuti n  r the same cause. t him, either as a matter  pr cedure r  substantive right, h  the la
3.m " in rm the c urt  the acts alleged, s that it may decide den minates the crime hich th se acts c nstitute. (3e ple v. Pabad )
hether they are suicient in la t supp rt a c nvicti n, i ne
sh uld be had. ( .S. v. Karelsen) An accused charged ith nly ne ense  rape may n t be c nvicted  six
m 9n rder that this requirement be satisied, acts must be stated, n t c unts  rape. He cann t be held liable  r m re than hat he as charged
c nclusi ns  la. "he C mplaint must c ntain a speciic allegati n  ith. (3e ple v. anid )
every act and circumstance necessary t c nstitute the crime charged
( S v. Karelsen) Date and time  the Oense: A pers n need n t speciy the exact time  the
c mmissi n  the ense  time is an essential element  that ense.
Criminal in rmati n must c ntain: appr ximati n suiciently meets the requirement  la.
1.m name  the accused,
2.m designati n given t the ense by the statute, %( ,)'%+
3.m acts r missi n d ne c nstituting the ense, glements t be c nsidered:
4.m ame  the ended party, 1.m Pength  delay
5.m Appr ximate time and date  the c mmissi n  the ense 2.m eas n  r delay
6.m "he place  the c mmissi n  the ense. (3e ple v. Quitl ng) 3.m "he e rt  the deendant t assert his right
4.m 3rejudice caused t the deendant
!!# #¯++()%##!$%#
 A pers n cann t be charged m re than that c ntained in the in rmati n. Speedy Disp siti n: 9s usually relative t the circumstances  the particular
Qualiying circumstances must be alleged in the in rmati n as ell. case. C unting  )+' © iling  the in rmati n
i.e. nly 2 c unts  rape ere alleged in the charges. Alth ugh 6 c unts 
rape ere pr ven during trial, the accused can nly be c nvicted n the 2 O"g: Dismissal n the gr unds  speedy trial is the same as an acquittal
c unts alleged in the in rmati n. and is a bar t an ther pr secuti n  r the same ense (D uble e pardy
 attaches)
"he appellant cann t be c nvicted  the c mplex crime  h micide ith Speedy trial means ne that can be had as s n ater indictment is iled as the
assault up n an agent  a pers n in auth rity because the in rmati n iled pr secuti n can ith reas nable diligence prepare  r trial.
against the appellant     the essential elements  assault that the
accused then kne that, be re r at the time  the c mmissi n  the m Pength  delay is certainly a act r t c nsider; but ther act rs must
assault, the victim as an agent  the pers n in auth rity. (3e ple v. egala) als be c nsidered such as the  #  r the delay, !!  the
deendant t assert his right, and the ,>*)%& caused the deendant.
Disregarding the bjecti nable phrasing that  uld c mplex rebelli n ith
murder and multiple rustrated murder, that indictment is t be read as "he right  an accused t speedy trial sh uld n t be utilized t deprive the

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

State  a reas nable pp rtunity  airly indicting criminals. (3e ple v. 3urp se  right t c nr ntati n:
Úines) 1.m A rd the accused an pp rtunity t test the testim ny  the itness by
cr ssexaminati n
elie in 3 stp nements ith ut g d causeWhere a pr secuting icer, 2.m  r the judge t bserve the dep rtati n  the itness.
ith ut g d cause, secures p stp nements  the trial  a deendant against
his pr test bey nd a reas nable peri d  time, the accused is entitled t relie gxcepti n t right  c nr ntati n: (1) dying declarati n (2) trial in absentia
by a pr ceeding in    t c mpel a dismissal  the in rmati n, r i O"g: ight t C nr ntati n is n t available in preliminary investigati n.
he be restrained  his liberty, by     t btain his reed m. (C nde m Accused is n t entitled as a matter  right t be present during the
v. ivera) preliminary examinati n n r t cr ssexamine the itnesses presented
against him be re his arrest
m "his right is available during trial hich nly begins up n arraignment
%($,%+%+ m there is n right t c nr ntati n against in rmants h aided in the
"rial by 3ublicity " have prejudice t due pr cess, there must be allegati n arrest r in rmants h are n t itnesses
and pr  that judges have been duly inluenced by the publicity. 
Secti n 7  the Special ules  3r cedure prescribed  r Sharia¶s c urts
" arrant a inding  prejudicial publicity, there must be      © pr vide that i the plainti has n evidence t pr ve his claim, the deendant
that the judges have been unduly inluenced, n t simply that they might be, shall take an ath and judgment shall be rendered in his av r by the C urt.
by the barrage  publicity. 3etiti ners cann t rely n the subliminal eects  Sh uld deendant reuse t take an ath, plainti can airm his claim under
publicity. (Webb v. de Pe n; 3e ple v. "eehankee) ath, in hich case judgment shall be rendered in his av r. Said pr visi n
 eectively deprives a litigant  his right t due pr cess. 9t denies ap arty his
Outside  pecuniary interest, relati nship, r previ us participati n in the right t c nr nt the itness against him and t cr ssexamine them. 9t
matter that calls  r adjudicati n, there may be ther causes that c uld sh uld have n place even in the Special ules  3r cedure in the Shari¶ah
c nceivably er de the trait  bjectivity, thus calling  r   . 9 any such c urts  the c untry. ("ampar v. sman)
sh uld make its appearance and pr ve diicult t resist, the better c urse  r
a judge is t & ©
himsel. (ate r. v. aillaluz) $,*+ '& 
m C mpuls ry pr cess is n t nly t ³secure the attendance  itnesses in
9t is ttimes expedient r necessary in the due and aithul administrati n  his behal´ but als t ³secure the pr ducti n  evidence in his behal.´
justice  r the presiding judge t reexamine a itness in rder that his
judgment hen rendered may rest up n a ull and clear understanding  the %"! %( 
acts. (3e ple v. anal : hen a judge intervened in the cr ssexaminati n) m 3resumpti n is alays against the aiver
m 3r secuti n must pr ve ith str ngly c nvincing evidence that the
%(*/+%&%+ accused  
and    
submitted his c nessi n and   

"rial is public hen attendance is pen t all irrespective  relati nship t  
maniested that he as n t interested in having a layer
deendant. assist him during the taking  that c nessi n. (3e ple v. ara)
0  hen the evidence presented may be characterized as ensive t 
decency r public m rals, the pr ceeding may be limited t riends, relatives  r   
  
 ¯¯    ¯
and c unsel. (Úarcia v. D ming )      7  ¯  
 ¯     
  ¯
   
"his right serves as a saeguard against any attempt t empl y ur c urt as 
instruments  persecuti n. "he kn ledge that every criminal trial is subject m Writ  Habeas C rpus ± rit directed t the pers n detaining an ther
t c ntemp rane us revie in the  rum  public pini n is an eective c mmanding him t pr duce the b dy  the pris ner at a designated
restraint n p ssible abuse  judicial p er. (Úarcia v. D ming ) time and place, ith the day and cause  his capti n and detenti n, t
d , submit t , and receive hatever the c urt r judge aarding the rit
%( .0$%#L$%# !&..!& shall c nsider in that behal

r6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 "here must be a deprivati n  pers nal liberty t begin ith. aived. 9t must there re be asserted. "hus, i there as a delay in the trial
m 3rivilege  the rit  habeas c rpus ± right t have an immediate  the case, petiti ners are n t entirely ith ut blame.
determinati n  the legality  the deprivati n  physical liberty.
m "he  is never suspended, it is the privilege  the rit that may be Ãurtherm re, the right  an accused t a speedy trial is guaranteed t him by
suspended. the C nstituti n but the same shall n t be utilized t deprive the State  a
 reas nable pp rtunity  airly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights
1*% % ! * ,# %#!%"%+( sh uld n t  rk against and preclude the pe ple's equally imp rtant right t
1.m gxistence  Actual invasi n r ebelli n public justice. (Úuiani v. Sandiganbayan)
2.m 3ublic Saety requires the suspensi n
(d es n t c me ith suspensi n  Bail) 
0m "he 3resident has the p er t suspend the privilege, subject t the limits   ?     ¯   3    ¯  
in Article a99, sec. 18 ¯ ¯  3 

3urp se: " prevent perjury and c nessi n under duress.
A resp ndent in a petiti n  r      have the burden t pr ve that
they had indeed released the detainees i their inv king it as their deense. 9 ¯ *#(%#  +!.#&%$%#%#
the resp ndents have n t satisied the burden, the case must be reerred t m When is a questi n incriminating?
the CH . (Diz n v. gduard ) Mm A crime may c ntain t r m re elements, a questi n  uld be
 incriminating i it tends t establish even ne  the elements
  ‰ ¯    ¯ ¯       ¯  Mm "estiying t a act hich  uld be a necessary link in a chain 
   
    ¯   
 ¯ -¯ ¯ . evidence t pr ve the c mmissi n  the crime
-¯ ¯3  ¯  
 m ight applies nly t testim nial c mpulsi n, n t bject evidence (aillal r
m   Speedy trial in Secti n 14 c vers nly the trial phase  criminal v. Summers)
cases hereas &%# ‰ &"  ++ ,   ! #' >*)%&%+ 1* %.
>*)%&%+)$%#% %",&)%#( m One may n t be c mpelled t pr duce a sample  his riting as evidence
m emedy i there has been unreas nable delay in the res luti n  a case: since it is s mething m re than a m ving b dy but als requires
Dismissal thr ugh mandamus ( que v. Ombudsman) applicati n  intelligence and attenti n (Beltran v. Sams n)

9n the applicati n  the c nstituti nal guaranty  the right t speedy D cumentary gvidence:
disp siti n  cases, particular regard must be taken  the acts and  C mpuls ry pr ducti n  private b ks and d cuments  the ner is
circumstances peculiar t each case. Wellsettled is the rule that the right t a c mpelling him t be a itness against himsel.
speedy disp siti n  cases, like the right t a speedy trial, is deemed vi lated
nly hen the pr ceeding is attended by vexati us, caprici us, and ppressive  "he privilege hich exists as t private papers, cann t be maintained in
delay. 9n the determinati n  hether r n t that right has been vi lated, relati n t rec rds required by la t be kept in rder that there may be
the act rs that may be c nsidered and balanced are: the length  delay, the suitable in rmati n  transacti ns hich are the appr priate subjects 
reas ns  r such delay, the asserti n r ailure t assert such right by the g vernmental regulati n and the en rcement  restricti ns validly
accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay. established.

"he c ncept  ³speedy disp siti n  cases´ is lexible and is c nsistent ith m Only natural pers ns are pr tected by this right; juridical entities, like
 #/+ delay. (Caballer v. Al ns , r.) c rp rati ns, are n t.

"he right t a speedy trial as ell as ther rights c nerred by the C nstituti n m Stage hen right against sel incriminati n may be asserted: r m the
r statute, except hen therise expressly s pr vided by la, may be m ment he is asked t testiy.

rÆ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

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


Criminal Case He may reuse t take the
"he right against sel incriminati n extends even t administrative pr ceedings
itness stand during the trial r
hich p ssess a criminal r penal aspect. (3ascual r. v. B ard  edical
cust dial investigati n.
He may n t reuse gxaminers)
9 n trial, ne may reuse t
t take the itness
anser
stand. ight against selincriminati n can nly be inv ked in penal/criminal
Civil Case He may n t reuse t take the
pr ceedings. 9t cann t be inv ked in a Pegislative 9nquiry. (Standard
itness stand.
He may reuse t Chartered v. Senate)
He may reuse t anser
anser an
incriminating questi n.
incriminating 
Administrative He may reuse t take the
questi n  @
Case itness stand i it is criminal in
89     ¯  ¯   ¯ 
  
nature like  reiture r
 ¯
¯¯  ¯  
dep rtati n
859  ¯   ¯
3 ¯7 7
¯ ¯ 3
¯ 3 ¯  ¯ ¯
A penal la that pr vides  r a higher penalty against the accused h reuses  
t testiy r make statements that  uld be tantam unt t an admissi n  
guilt vi lates the right against selincriminati n. "he accused has a right t 9nv luntary Servitude ± every c nditi n  en rced r c mpuls ry service
rely n the presumpti n  inn cence until pr secuti n pr ves the elements   ne t an ther n matter under hat  rm such servitude may be
the crime charged against him. Silence cann t be taken as pr  against him. disguised.
( S v. avarr )
0&,%#  (1) i such is punishment here the party is c nvicted, (2) in
What is pr hibited by the c nstituti nal guarantee is the use  physical r the interest  nati nal deense, citizens may be c mpelled t render
m ral c mpulsi n t ext rt c mmunicati n r m the itness, n t an inclusi n pers nal military r civil service, (3) a return t  rk rder, (4)
 his b dy in evide hen it is material. "hus, substance emitting r m the merchants and marines c mpelled t remain until the end  v yage, (5)
b dy  the deendant can be received as evidence. ( S v. "an "eng; S. vs. a p sse c mitatus ± a male at a certain age may be validly pressed int
Ong; aillal r v. Summers; S v. Ong SiuH ng) service  r the apprehensi n  criminals thr ugh legitimate exercise 
p lice p er, (6) parental auth rity
A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, bl d test, disease test d es n t all
under the pr hibiti n against sel incriminati n.
  G 89 7 
  ¯    3   
Writing is n t a purely mechanical act, because it requires the applicati n    ¯   3¯ 3
  
intelligence and attenti n, there re, it c nstitutes an evidence against the ¯ ¯  ¯  3   
  3 
accused. gvidence that requires a p sitive intelligent act r m the accused alls ¯          3          
under the right against sel incriminati n. (Beltran v. Sams n; Bermudez v.
¯ ¯ ¯¯ ¯ 3  ¯ 
Castill )      ¯
859   3 3
   ¯    ¯ 
C mpelling a itnessaccused t take the stand is a vi lati n  his right  ¯  3¯ ¯ ¯    ¯ 
against sel incriminati n. His testim ny may n t be admissible against him.       ¯¯   ¯¯ ¯
¯ 
(Chavez v. CA, the à rd "hunderbird case)    3¯    ¯¯ ¯
C mpelling the accused in an Antigrat pr ceeding t take the stand  r the ¯0& %"!%# 
pr secuti n against him against his ill is a vi lati n  his right against sel m A ine is excessive hen it is dispr p rti nate t the circumstance  the

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

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


(2) "he debt r has been duly c nvicted
*+()%#(#*$#*#% $#
m ere severity  the punishment d es n t make it cruel r unusual. 9t 3 ll "ax ± cedula tax r residence tax
must be lagrantly and plainly ppressive, h lly dispr p rti nate t the
nature  the ense as t sh ck the m ral sense  the c mmunity 55
(3e ple v. gst ista) "he gravamen  the ense punished by B3 22 is the act  issuing a
 rthless check r a check that is dish n red. 9t is n t the n npayment  an
m Úuides t determine i it is cruel and unusual bligati n that is penalized. "he thrust  the la is t pr hibit, under pain 
1.m 3unishment must n t be s severe as t be degrading t human penal sancti ns, the making   rthless checks. (3e ple v. P zan )
dignity
2.m 9t must n t be arbitrary
3.m 9t must n t be unacceptable t c ntemp rary s ciety   5     ¯     - ¯ 

4.m 9t must n t be excessive  3
  ¯3

 
¯¯   ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯     ¯¯  
Hein us Crime ± hein us  r being griev us, di us, and hateul enses and    ¯    ¯ ¯    ¯      

hich by reas n  their inherent r maniest ickedness, vici usness, atr city   ¯3¯
and perversity are repugnant and utrage us t the c mm n standards and 
n rms  decency and m rality in a just, civilized and rdered s ciety m nder the irst sentence, ne can be charged  r the same act i it
c nstitutes at least t dierent enses under t statutes r t
"he p er  the State t imp se the death penalty is implied in secti n 1  rdinances. But this d es n apply t c ntinuing crimes
Article 3. ³ pers n shall be deprived  , liberty, r pr perty ith ut due 
pr cess  la.´ Secti n 19 merely pr vides the limit t that plenary p er  
the State. 

"he c ngress has the p er t rest re the death penalty hich merely Ã9 S" gO3A DY A""ACHgD 1.m Ú d 9ndictment
requires that: 2.m Be re a c mpetent C urt
(1) the c ngress deine r describe hat is meant by hein us crimes; 3.m Ater arraignment
(2) that c ngress speciy and penalize by death nly crimes that 4.m Ater a valid plea
qualiy as hein us in acc rdance ith the deiniti n r descripti n set
in the death penalty bill m Deective c mplaint did n t pace
(3) the c ngress sh uld be singularly m tivated by c mpelling reas n the accused in irst je pardy
inv lving hein us crimes. (3e ple v. gchegaray) Ã9 S" gO3A DY "g 9A"gD 1.m By Acquittal
2.m Ãinal C nvicti n
"he punishment  death by itsel is neither cruel n r unusual. 9t is nly cruel 3.m Dismissal ith ut express
hen it inv lves lingering death. (3e ple v. gchegaray) c nsent  the accused
4.m Dismissal n the merits

  5J     ¯  3  
   m aerbal dismissal is n t inal until
 ¯3
¯ ¯7 ritten and signed by a judge
 SgCOD gO3A DY A""ACHgD Same gvidence "est hether the
Debt ± liability t pay m ney gr ing ur  c ntract, express r implied evidence needed  r ne case ill
supp rt a c nvicti n in the ther.
A pers n may nly be impris ned  r raudulent debt i:

r- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

2.m 9dentical
3.m 9n the attempted r ¯,,+ 
rustrated  rm  an ther udgment  Acquittal ± immediately inal. (decided n merits)
4.m ecessarily includes udgment  C nvicti n ± inal hen the peri d  r appeal has lapsed r
5.m ecessarily included sentence is served r right t appeal is aived r applied  r pr bati n

¯¯&$#!-,)' %" ,,+


"he rule against d uble je pardy pr tects the accused n t against the peril  9 an accused iles t dismiss the case  r lack  jurisdicti n, it is made via
sec nd punishment, but against being again tried  r the same ense. his n aiver, there re 1st je pardy d es O" attach.
(3e ple v. Ylagan)  9 there is c nsent t a pr visi nal dismissal by the accused, je pardy d es
 n t attach.
1*% % !+%)!# !*/+-,)'
9m Ãirst e pardy must have attached pri r t the 2nd  je pardy in: rdinary appeal, actinding, certi rari, impeachment,
 gvidence  seldeense am unts t ithdraal  his riginal plea. legislati n in aid  legislati n
 A deective c mplaint d es O" attach je pardy up n a grant  a
m ti n t quash.  *+# *,"#%#(
& 
 9 the C urt has O jurisdicti n, je pardy shall n t attach.
Supervening gvent± When the 2nd ense as n t in existence at the time 
59m Ãirst e pardy must have "g 9A"gD the irst pr secuti n,  r the simple reas n that in such a case there is n
p ssibility  r the accused t be c nvicted  r an ense that as then
$%#%#!-,)' inexistent.
D uble e pardy cann t be inv ked as a deense hen the ther case used as
the basis  the irst e pardy has n t been terminated. (Bula ng v. 3e ple) Supervening Ãact±Where ater the irst pr secuti n, a ne act supervenes  r
 hich the deendant is resp nsible, hich changes the character  the
$%#%# ++/ ense, and, t gether ith the acts existing at the time, c nstitutes a ne
a.m An ther pr secuti n  r the ense charged. and distinct ense, there is n d uble je pardy. " determine d uble
b.m Any attempt t c mmit the same, je pardy, it is essential t pr ve the existence  b th enses during the
c.m Or rustrati n there , pendency  the irst pr secuti n. "he sec nd charge as inexistent in this
d.m Or  r any ense hich necessarily includes r is case at that time because the victim as still alive. "here as a supervening
necessarily included in the c mplaint/in rmati n. act in this case calling  r the amendment  the in rmati n. (3e ple v. el )
"an appeal by the pr secuti n r m the Order  Dismissal by the
trial c urt shall n t c nstitute D uble e pardy i: But i reas n  r the amendment  the charge as already existing during the
1.m Dismissal is made up n m ti n, r ith the express c nsent  the irst examinati n but as n t c nsidered in the charge because  the
deendant. negligence  the examiner, then d uble je pardy may attach because there is
2.m "he dismissal is n t an acquittal based up n c nsiderati n  the n Supervening event. (3e ple v. Buling)
evidence r the merits  the case.
3.m "he questi n t be passed up n by the appellate c urt is purely legal  $ !!#  
s that sh uld the dismissal be  und inc rrect, the case  uld have  Oenses need n t be the same, but they sh uld c me r m the same act.
t be remanded t the c urt  rigin  r urther pr ceedings, in rder  hen ne act vi lates t dierent statutes r t dierent pr visi ns
t determine guilt/inn cence  the deendant.  a statute. 9 ne act results in 2 dierent enses, pr secuti n under ne is
 te: a verbal dismissal is n t inal until ritten d n and signed by the n t a bar t pr secuti n under the ther.
udge.
A special la pr hibiting the illegal p ssessi n  irearms, even i it pr vides
9m "he 2nd e pardy must be  r the same ense as that in the irst  r a higher penalty i the eap n as used in a h micide/murder, d es n t

rr Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

create a irst je pardy t the pr secuti n  r the h micide/murder. D uble a certain c urt.
e pardy may nly be inv ked  r the same ense r identical enses.
Bill  Attainder  a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial
A simple act may be an ense against t dierent pr visi ns  la. 9 ne trial
pr visi n requires pr   an additi nal act that is n t included in the ther, glements:
an acquittal r c nvicti n under ne d es n t bar pr secuti n  r the ther. a.m "here must be a la,
"he accused cann t plead ne as a bar t an ther. ( 3e ple v "i z n) b.m Which imp ses a penal burden n a named individual r
easily ascertainable members  a gr up,
 )%##&#) * c.m imp sed directly by the la ith ut judicial trial.
9 an act is punished by la and an rdinance, c nvicti n r acquittal under
either shall c nstitute a bar  t an ther pr secuti n  r the same act. A Pa punishing any pers n h ·  
 ©
and by vert acts
(3e ple v. el va) ailiates himsel ith, bec mes r remains a member´  the C mmunist 3arty
r  any ther similar ³subversive´ rganizati n is n t a Bill  Attainder
When the dismissal r terminati n  the case is br ught ab ut at the instance because it d es n t dispense ith udicial determinati n  the guilt  the
 the accused, there is n d uble je pardy. accused. 9ntent still needs t be pr ven in c urt. (3e ple v. Ãerrer)

¯,,+%)%$,&$#&   A bill  attainder is a legislative act hich inlicts punishment ith ut judicial
gstrada cann t claim that the impeachment pr ceeding as ³terminated n its trial. 9ts essence is the substituti n  a legislative  r a judicial determinati n
merits´ and that there as a ³ailure t pr secute´ him. By resigning, he  guilt.
c nsented t the terminati n  the impeachment case against him. (gstrada v
Desiert ) "he gO is n t a Bill  Attainder because it makes it perectly clear that any
judgment  guilt in the amassing acquisiti n  'illg tten ealth' is t be
 handed d n by a judicial tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (airata v.
 Sandiganbayan)
  55 7 
¯ ¯ 
¯¯  ¯ "he retr active applicati n  A 8249, hich expands the jurisdicti n  the
¯ Sandiganbayan, cann t be c nsidered as an  ©  la. 9t is n t a penal
 la but a substantive la n jurisdicti n. Only the retr active applicati n  a
gx 3 st Ãact Pa ± penal la can be c nsidered as an   ©   la. (Pacs n v. gxecutive
(a) ne hich makes an acti n d ne be re the passing  the la and Secretary)
hich as inn cent hen d ne criminal and punishes such acti n,
(b) hich aggravates a crime r makes it greater than hen it as
c mmitted, ¯ 6 
(c) hich changes the punishment and inlicts a greater punishment,
(d) hich alters the legal rules  evidence and receive less r dierent   
  ¯ 6 
   
testim ny than the la required at the time  the c mmissi n  the 89m   ¯ 6 
   ¯ 3
ense,
 ¯  
     
(e) assumes t regulate civil rights and remedies nly but in eect 859m    
¯    3    ¯  6
  
imp ses a penalty r deprivati n  a right hich hen d ne as laul,   
() deprives a pers n accused  a crime  s me laul pr tecti n t 89m     
 -¯¯  ? G? 
 
hich he has bec me entitled. 3         6   
¯   ¯ 
3¯- L¯
O"g: 9t nly pr hibits retr spective penal las (las hich imp se a 8-9m   ¯ ¯ ¯6¯ ¯ ¯
penalty r prescribes a burden equivalent t a penalty) 
 DOgS O" apply t substantive las like the expansi n  jurisdicti n  m Citizenship ± pers nal and m re r less permanent membership in a

r‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

p litical c mmunity. aturalizati n las sh uld be rigidly en rced and c nstrued strictly in av r
m  des  Acquiring Citizenship: 1. us sanguinis ± n the basis  bl d;  the g vernment and against the applicant.
2. us s li ± basis  place  birth; 3. aturalizati n ± legal act  aturalizati n requires b th substantial and pr cedural c mpliance (Ong Chia
ad pting an alien and cl thing him ith the privilege  a native b rn. We v epublic)
 ll  us sanguinis and naturalizati n.
m Citizenship makes n distincti n beteen legitimate r illegitimate 9n naturalizati n pr ceedings, it is the burden  the applicant t pr ve n t
children i lineage is clear ("ecs n v. COgPgC) nly his n g d m ral character but als the g d m ral character 
m Child b rn under the 1973 r 1987 C nstituti n  Ãilipina m ther and an his/her itnesses, h must be credible pers ns. (S v. epublic)
alien ather (a) i the m ther is still a citizenship at the time  birth, he is
a natural b rn (b) i the m ther has changed citizenship, need t A naturalizati n pr ceeding is n t a judicial adversary pr ceeding, and the
naturalize decisi n rendered therein d es n t c nstitute res judicata. A certiicate 
m Kinds  aturalizati n la: Úeneral, Special, ass, Úeneral la applied naturalizati n may be cancelled i it is subsequently disc vered that the
thr ugh c mbinati n  administrative pr cess and presidential legislative applicant btained it by misleading the c urt up n any material act. (S v.
pr cess, administrative epublic)
Mm 3r cedural requirements: declarati n  intenti n, iling 
petiti n, hearing and initial judgment, peri d  pr bati n, "he d ctrine  $  d es n t apply t citizenship. (Pab v C melec)
rehearing and inal judgment
Mm Substantive requirements: b rn r residing in the c untry 9n rder  r $   t apply, there must be:
since birth, 18 years ab ve, ÚC and believes in the 1.m a pers n's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a
principles  the c nstituti n, must received primary and c ntr versy here said pers n is a party;
sec ndary educati n t a sch l rec gnized by DgCS, must 2.m the S licit r Úeneral r his auth rized representative t k active
have kn n trade, business, pr essi n r ccupati n, able part in the res luti n there , and;
t read, rite, speak Ãilipin , must have mingled ith 3.m the inding r citizenship is airmed by this C urt.
citizens and evinced desire t learn (Úatchalian v. B ard  C mmissi ners)
A natural b rn citizen  the 3hilippines h ns dual citizenship, but n t
     ( r instance, a natural b rn citizen, h by $  , als
%+%%#
acquires alien citizenship) is deemed t have ren unced his alien citizenship ."he    child  a Ãilipin ather and an alien m ther is a Ãilipin as
up n the iling  an applicati n  r a Certiicate  Candidacy. (aalles v. l ng as paternity is clear because  $  . "here is n distincti n
C melec, ercad v. anzan ) beteen legitimate and illegitimate children. ("ecs n v COgPgC)

"he mere act that a pers n is b rn in a territ ry that  ll s the rule  5
 d es n t mean that he is n l nger a Ãilipin citizen. At the m st, it grants  5¯ ¯ 6 ¯   ¯ 6 
him dual citizenship as l ng as ne  his parents is a Ãilipin . (aalles v.
     
3      ¯    
3
C melec) ¯ ¯   ¯   
      6 
       6   ¯ ¯  
*+%=%# ¯ ¯ ¯ 89   ¯3¯ ¯ 
 
m aturalizati n may be by a P     (Pa best ing citizenship t A Child b rn be re an 17, 1973 t an alien ather and a Ãilipin m ther d es
an alien),      ( A 9139), r by a udicial Act n t have t elect 3hilippine Citizenship i his ather has bec me a naturalized
(C mm nealth Act 473) Ãilipin citizen be re he c uld reach the age  maj rity. He cann t elect
m An Applicant  r naturalizati n nder CA 473 must the strict requirements an ther citizenship because his ather as already a Ãilipin citizen.
 CA 473. He cann t be granted citizenship even i he  uld have been He is deemed t be a natural b rn citizen by virtue  the curative nature
qualiied under A 9139 (S v. epublic) Secti n 2 because his m ther is a Ãilipina, and he d es n t have t per rm
 any acts t perect his Ãilipin citizenship.

r  Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

(C v H g") Citizenship is an indispensible requirement  r h lding elective ice. (Pab r


v C melec, 1996)
9n ,%%#, hich is the relevant m de in this case, the rec very and
rest rati n  the riginal nati nality ccurs. A natural b rn citizen h l ses A Ãilipin h claims that he as naturalized as an American citizen in rder
his citizenship, then applies  r repatriati n is deemed t be a natural b rn t pr tect himsel r m the arc s regime is disqualiied r m running  r
citizen. "his is in spite  the pr visi n  Secti n 2. (Bengs n v H g") ice. any Ãilipin s are similarly situated in the States but did n t ind it
 necessary t aband n Ãilipin citizenship. He may validly reacquire his
 citizenship thr ugh repatriati n t qualiy himsel  r ice. (Ãrivald v.
   6  3¯    ¯  C melec, 1989)
 3¯  ¯
 Ã r elective icials, citizenship is required at the time he is pr claimed t
m aturalizati n las all  cancellati n  certiicate i it is  und t have ice and at the start  his term. epatriati n retr actively applies t the
btained ³raudulently r illegally´ r that he vi lated c nditi ns p sed n date  applicati n. (Ãrivald v C melec, 1996)
him. "his must be pr ven in a clear, unequiv cal and c nvincing evidence
m H  may citizenship be reacquired: aturalizati n, Direct act  C ngress   - 6 
        3¯  ¯ 
and epatriati n ¯ ¯    6        ¯ 
m P ss  Citizenship 3   ¯ 3  ¯  ¯  
Mm aturalizati n 
Mm gxpress renunciati n 
Mm Subscribing ath  allegiance t a  reign c untry   r ¯ ¯ ¯
 6    3¯    
Mm Serving in the armed  rces  an enemy c untry ¯ ¯  ¯ ¯¯ ¯
Mm Being a deserter  the AÃ3 
m epatriati n ± rec very  riginal citizenship. m Pa has all ed dual citizenship
Mm Deserti n  the armed  rces m Dual citizenship is n t dual allegiance
Mm Service in the armed  rced  the allied  rces during the m Derivative aturalizati n= citizenship derived r m that  an ther as
W rld War 99 r m a pers n h h lds citizenship by virtue  naturalizati n
Mm Service in the armed  rces  the S at any ther time
Mm arriage  a Ãilipin  man t an alien A atural b rn Ãilipin h acquires alien citizenship by naturalizati n, then
Mm 3 litical and ec n mic necessity subsequently applies  r repatriati n in rder t retain/reacquire his Ãilipin
citizenship is c nsidered t all under the term ³dual allegiance´. (ac t v. Dal)
A naturalized Ãilipin h c ntinues t declare 3 rtugese citizenship in
c mmercial d cuments and subsequently btains a 3 rtugese passp rt is "he rule in ercad v. anzan and aalles v. C melec is inapplicable here a
deemed t have expressly ren unced his 3hilippine citizenship by c ntinuing Ãilipin citizen acquires  reign citizenship thr ugh naturalizati n, then
t represent himsel as an alien. His acts are gr ssly inc nsistent ith subsequently repatriates under A 9225. He is n t c nsidered t have
naturalizati n. (Yu v. Deens rSantiag ) ren unced his allegiance t the  reign c untry up n his iling  a COC. He
must irst take an ath expressly ren uncing his  reign allegiance be re he
A Ãilipin h naturalizes as an Australian, ren uncing his Ãilipin citizenship may be qualiied t ile  r candidacy. (ac t v. Dal)
in the pr cess, cann t validly claim that he is still a Ãilipin citizen because his
acquisiti n  Australian citizenship as impr per. He has already validly Dual allegiance is dierent r m dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises hen,
ren unced his Ãilipin citizenship, and the validity  his naturalizati n is as a result  the c ncurrent applicati n  the dierent las  t r m re
beteen him and Australia. ntil he takes the steps necessary t validly states, a pers n is simultane usly c nsidered a nati nal by the said states
reacquire 3hilippine citizenship, he is disqualiied r m running  r ice. (Pab (e.g. jus s li, jus sanguinis) Dual allegiance reers t the situati n in hich a
r. v C melec, 1989) pers n simultane usly es, by s me p sitive act, l yalty t t r m re
states. 9t is the result  an individual¶s v liti n. (ercad v. anzan )

rü Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

because  the turbulent p litical climate cann t be c nsidered t have


A Dual Citizen h repatriates under A 9225 is deemed t implicitly ren unce aband ned his d micile. His departure cann t be c nsidered v luntary and
his allegiance t the  reign c untry. (AASSCalilung v Datuman ng) ith ut evidence  his intenti n t aband n the ld d micile, he cann t be
presumed t have ad pted a ne ne. ( mualdez v. "C)

¯  

¯  m Acquisiti n  a ne d micile requires    and 


  6
   

¯  3¯  7    ¯ 6 


   1.m esidence, b dily presence in ne l cality
          ¯
  ¯   ¯  ¯ 2.m 9   t remain in the ne l cality
¯     ¯ 
 ¯  ¯   ¯ ¯    3.m 9   t      
    
 ¯ ¯   ¯  ¯    ¯
          
 ¯ ¯  7 3    5     ¯ ¯  3
   
33¯           ¯        ¯ ¯
   ¯  ¯   ¯  ¯  3
     ¯  3 ¯  3    
 ¯      ¯

  ¯ ¯ 
7  
 

¯      ¯ ¯     ¯   
    ¯
 ¯  ¯     ¯  ¯
   
m Surage ± right t v te in electi n         ¯  ¯       
m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne 7   ¯  ¯     ¯     33   
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld    3¯  3 ¯        
  
d micile ¯ 
m  t qualiy t v te: th se sentence by inal judgment t suer 
impris nment  n t less than ne year but shall aut matically reacquire m Absentee v ting all ed under A 9189
the right up n expirati n  ive years ater service  sentence, any
pers n adjudged by inal c nvicti n  vi lating his allegiance, insane r nder A 9189, a Ãilipin immigrant h has been absent  r 3 years is
eebleminded pers ns. presumed t have aband ned his residence. H ever, he may execute an
aidavit  his intenti n t return. "his serves as implicit pr  that he has n t
" be sure, the right  surage is n t at all abs lute. eedless t say, the aband ned his d micile, and is there re d es n t vi late the residency
exercise  the right  surage, as in the enj yment  all ther rights, is requirement  Secti n 1. (acalintal v. C melec)
subject t existing substantive and pr cedural requirements emb died in ur
C nstituti n, statute b ks and ther rep sit ries  la. As t the pr cedural Dual Citizens under A 9225 are all ed t v te thr ugh the Overseas
limitati n, the right  a citizen t v te is necessarily c nditi ned up n certain Absentee v ter la, ith ut the need  r residency. Secti n 2 Auth rizes
pr cedural requirements he must underg : am ng thers, the pr cess  absentee v ting and pr vides an exempti n r m the residency requirement.
registrati n. (ic lasPeis v. C melec)

3r ceeding r m the signiicance  registrati n as a necessary requisite t the 


right t v te, the State, in the exercise  its inherent p lice p er, may then ¯ 7 ¯- ¯ 3¯   
enact las t saeguard and regulate the act  v ter¶s registrati n  r the &%#  "he C ngress shall give highest pri rity t the enactment 
ultimate purp se  c nducting h nest, rderly and peaceul electi n, t the measures that pr tect and enhance the right  all the pe ple t human
incidental yet generally imp rtant end, that even preelecti n activities c uld dignity, reduce s cial, ec n mic, and p litical inequalities, and rem ve cultural
be per rmed by the duly c nstituted auth rities in a realistic and rderly inequities by equitably diusing ealth and p litical p er  r the c mm n
manner. (Akbayan v. C melec; the C urt deending C melec¶s ban  r g d. " this end, the State shall regulate the acquisiti n, nership, use, and
registrati n 120 days be re the electi n) disp siti n  pr perty and its increments.
"he C nstituti n speciically pr vides that lab r is entitled t "humane
A pers n h let the c untry t seek asylum abr ad ut  ear  r his saety c nditi ns   rk. 9t als directs the State t pr m te "equality 

r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

empl yment pp rtunities  r all." Similarly, the Pab r C de pr vides that the c nsiderati ns, and subject t the payment  just c mpensati n. 9n
State shall "ensure equal  rk pp rtunities regardless  sex, race r creed." determining retenti n limits, the State shall respect the right  small
9t  uld be an ar nt t b th the spirit and letter  these pr visi ns  the land ners. "he State shall urther pr vide incentives  r v luntary land
State, i in spite  its prim rdial bligati n t pr m te and ensure equal sharing.
empl yment pp rtunities, it cl ses its eyes t unequal and discriminat ry +%&!$%##$%#<  " the extent that the
terms and c nditi ns  empl yment. (9nternati nal Sch l Alliance  measures under challenge merely prescribe retenti n limits  r land ners,
gducat rs v. Quisumbing) there is an exercise  the p lice p er  r the regulati n  private pr perty
in acc rdance ith the C nstituti n. But here, t carry ut such regulati n it
m " principal activities state is c mmanded t attend t achieve s cial bec mes necessary t deprive such ners  hatever lands they may n
justice (1) creati n  m re ec n mic pp rtunities and m re ealth in excess  the maximum area all ed, there is deinitely a taking under the
(2)cl ser regulati n  the acquisiti n, nership, use and disp siti n  p er  eminent d main  r hich payment  just c mpensati n is
pr perty t achieve m re equitable distributi n r ealth and p er imperative.
m
m " acquire ne d micile: (1) residence r b dily presence in the ne "he taking c ntemplated is n t a mere limitati n  the use  the land. What
l cality, (2) an intenti n t remain there, (3) intenti n t aband n the ld it requires is the surrender  the title t and the physical p ssessi n  the
d micile said excess and all beneicial rights accruing t the ner in av r  the
&%# 5 "he pr m ti n  s cial justice shall include the c mmitment t armerbeneiciary.
create ec n mic pp rtunities based n reed m  initiative and selreliance.
¯ 2%#(%*-* $,# %#<  3D 27 expressly rdered that ³n
&%#  "he State shall a rd ull pr tecti n t lab r, l cal and verseas, title t the land ned´ as t be actually issued t the recipient armer
rganized and un rganized, and pr m te ull empl yment and equality  unless and until he had bec me a ullledged member  a duly rec gnized
empl yment pp rtunities  r all. armers¶ c perative.´ 9t as underst d, h ever, that ull payment  the
9t shall guarantee the rights  all  rkers t sel rganizati n, c llective just c mpensati n als had t be made irst, c n rmably t the c nstituti nal
bargaining and neg tiati ns, and peaceul c ncerted activities, including the requirement.
right t strike in acc rdance ith la. "hey shall be entitled t security 
tenure, humane c nditi ns   rk, and a living age. "hey shall als "he CA 3 Pa,  r its part, c nditi ns the transer  p ssessi n and
participate in p licy and decisi nmaking pr cesses aecting their rights and nership  the land t the g vernment n receipt by the land ner  the
beneits as may be pr vided by la. c rresp nding payment r the dep sit by the DA  the c mpensati n in cash
"he State shall pr m te the principle  shared resp nsibility beteen  rkers r PB3 b nds ith an accessible bank. ntil then, title als remains ith the
and empl yers and the preerential use  v luntary m des in settling land ner.
disputes, including c nciliati n, and shall en rce their mutual c mpliance
thereith t  ster industrial peace.  )$%#%#!-* $,# %#,"%))!/'+"+%)<
"he State shall regulate the relati ns beteen  rkers and empl yers,  Secti n 16(d), hich pr vides that in case  the rejecti n r disregard by
rec gnizing the right  lab r t its just share in the ruits  pr ducti n and the ner  the er  the g vernment t buy his land
the right  enterprises t reas nable returns t investments, and t ³... the DA shall c nduct summary administrative pr ceedings t determine
expansi n and gr th. the c mpensati n  r the land´
¯ ¯ ¯¯¯ ¯     
3
&%# - "he State shall, by la, undertake an agrarian re rm pr gram Alth ugh the pr ceedings are described as summary, the land ner and ther
 unded n the right  armers and regular arm  rkers h are landless, t interested parties are nevertheless all ed an pp rtunity t submit evidence
n directly r c llectively the lands they till r, in the case  ther arm n the real value  the pr perty. But m re imp rtantly, the determinati n 
 rkers, t receive a just share  the ruits there . " this end, the State the just c mpensati n by the DA is n t by any means inal and c nclusive,
shall enc urage and undertake the just distributi n  all agricultural lands, the C urts  ustice still have a right t revie the determinati n ith inality.
subject t such pri rities and reas nable retenti n limits as the C ngress may
prescribe, taking int acc unt ec l gical, devel pmental, r equity "+*%#'0,,%%#."he traditi nal medium  r the payment 

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

just c mpensati n is m ney and n ther. H ever, e d n t deal here ith &%# ? "he State shall pr tect the rights  subsistence ishermen,
the traditi nal excercise  the p er  eminent d main. "his is a especially  l cal c mmunities, t the preerential use  the c mmunal
"+*%#'2%#)!0,,%%#hich aects all private agricultural marine and ishing res urces, b th inland and sh re. 9t shall pr vide
lands henever  und and  hatever kind as l ng as they are in excess  supp rt t such ishermen thr ugh appr priate techn l gy and research,
the maximum retenti n limits all ed their ners. "his kind  expr priati n adequate inancial, pr ducti n, and marketing assistance, and ther services.
is intended  r the beneit n t nly  a particular c mmunity r  a small "he State shall als pr tect, devel p, and c nserve such res urces. "he
segment  the p pulati n but  the entire Ãilipin nati n. pr tecti n shall extend t sh re ishing gr unds  subsistence ishermen
against  reign intrusi n. Ãish rkers shall receive a just share r m their
"he pr p rti n  cash payment t the ther things  value c nstituting the lab r in the utilizati n  marine and ishing res urces.
t tal payment, as determined n the basis  the areas  the lands &%# @ "he State shall pr vide incentives t land ners t invest the
expr priated, is n t unduly ppressive up n the land ner. 9t is n ted that pr ceeds  the agrarian re rm pr gram t pr m te industrializati n,
the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in m ney, primarily because the empl yment creati n, and privatizati n  public sect r enterprises. Ãinancial
small land ner ill be needing it m re than the big land ners, h can instruments used as payment  r their lands shall be h n red as equity in
a rd a bigger balance in b nds and ther things  value. enterprises  their ch ice.
(Ass ciati n  Small Pand ners v. Secretary  Agrarian e rm) m "here sh uld be mutual beneicial relati nship beteen industrializati n
and agrarian re rm. Agrarian re rm must unl ck the idle ealth hidden
m "his pr visi n aims at eicient pr ducti n, and m re equitable distributi n in the land and industrializati n  uld pr vide  r impr vement
 land, rec gnizing the right  th se h are landless t n the land
they till and a just share  the ruits  the land.  ¯¯ 
3¯  
m edistributi n  land is t be achieved thr ugh v luntary sale r &%# G "he State shall, by la, and  r the c mm n g d, undertake, in
expr priati n and resale. c perati n ith the private sect r, a c ntinuing pr gram  urban land
Pivest ck r p ultry raising is n t similar t cr p r tree arming. Pand is n t re rm and h using hich ill make available at a rdable c st, decent
the primary res urce in this undertaking. "he use  land is incidental t , but h using and basic services t underprivileged and h meless citizens in urban
n t the principal act r r c nsiderati n in pr ductivity in this industry. "he centers and resettlement areas. 9t shall als pr m te adequate empl yment
transcripts  the deliberati ns  the c nstituti nal c mmissi n  1986 n the pp rtunities t such citizens. 9n the implementati n  such pr gram the
meaning  the  rd ³agricultural´ clearly sh  that it as never the intenti n State shall respect the rights  small pr perty ners.
 the ramers  the c nstituti n t include livest ck and p ultry industry in m gvicti n must be d ne in acc rdance ith la that is ith dye pr cess.
the c verage  the c nstituti nallymandated agrarian re rm pr gram  the Due pr cesses n t necessarily judicial pr cess. 9t can als be
g vt. (Puz Ãarms v. Sec.  Agrarian e rm) administrative
m gvicti n and dem liti n ± the pers n must be acc rded due pr cess r an
&%# r "he State shall rec gnize the right  armers, arm rkers, and pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her ccupati n r
land ners, as ell as c peratives, and ther independent armers' p ssessi n inv lved is unlaul r against the ill  the ner
rganizati ns t participate in the planning, rganizati n, and management  &%# J rban r rural p r dellers shall n t be evicted n r their
the pr gram, and shall pr vide supp rt t agriculture thr ugh appr priate delling dem lished, except in acc rdance ith la and in a just and humane
techn l gy and research, and adequate inancial, pr ducti n, marketing, and manner.  resettlement  urban r rural dellers shall be undertaken
ther supp rt services. ith ut adequate c nsultati n ith them and the c mmunities here they are
&%# ‰ "he State shall apply the principles  agrarian re rm r t be rel cated.
steardship, henever applicable in acc rdance ith la, in the disp siti n r 3##!"%&%#.What is meant by "in acc rdance ith la" and "just
utilizati n  ther natural res urces, including lands  the public d main and humane manner" is that the pers n t be evicted be acc rded due
under lease r c ncessi n suitable t agriculture, subject t pri r rights, pr cess r an pp rtunity t c ntr vert the allegati n that his r her
h mestead rights  small settlers, and the rights  indigen us c mmunities ccupati n r p ssessi n  the pr perty inv lved is unlaul r against the
t their ancestral lands. "he State may resettle landless armers and ill  the land ner; that sh uld the illegal r unlaul ccupati n be pr ven,
arm rkers in its n agricultural estates hich shall be distributed t them the ccupant be suiciently n tiied be re actual evicti n r dem liti n is
in the manner pr vided by la. d ne; and that there be n l ss  lives, physical injuries r unnecessary l ss

‰6 Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

 r damage t pr perties. (3e ple v. Peach n) 4.m "he appr ved annual appr priati ns  the C mmissi n shall be
aut matically and regularly released.
¯ &%#@"he C mmissi n n Human ights shall have the  ll ing
&%#"he State shall ad pt an integrated and c mprehensive appr ach p ers and uncti ns:
t health devel pment hich shall endeav r t make essential g ds, health 1.m 9nvestigate, n its n r n c mplaint by any party, all  rms 
and ther s cial services available t all the pe ple at a rdable c st. "here human rights vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights;
shall be pri rity  r the needs  the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, 2.m Ad pt its perati nal guidelines and rules  pr cedure, and cite  r
 men, and children. "he State shall endeav r t pr vide ree medical care t c ntempt  r vi lati ns there  in acc rdance ith the ules  C urt;
paupers. 3.m 3r vide appr priate legal measures  r the pr tecti n  human rights
&%#5 "he State shall establish and maintain an eective  d and drug  all pers ns ithin the 3hilippines, as ell as Ãilipin s residing
regulat ry system and undertake appr priate health, manp er devel pment, abr ad, and pr vide  r preventive measures and legal aid services t
and research, resp nsive t the c untry's health needs and pr blems. the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need
&%# "he State shall establish a special agency  r disabled pers n  r pr tecti n;
their rehabilitati n, seldevel pment, and selreliance, and their integrati n 4.m gxercise visit rial p ers ver jails, pris ns, r detenti n acilities;
int the mainstream  s ciety. 5.m gstablish a c ntinuing pr gram  research, educati n, and
 3 in rmati n t enhance respect  r the primacy  human rights;
&%# - "he State shall pr tect  rking  men by pr viding sae and 6.m ec mmend t C ngress eective measures t pr m te human rights
healthul  rking c nditi ns, taking int acc unt their maternal uncti ns, and and t pr vide  r c mpensati n t victims  vi lati ns  human
such acilities and pp rtunities that ill enhance their elare and enable rights, r their amilies;
them t realize their ull p tential in the service  the nati n. 7.m  nit r the 3hilippine Ú vernment's c mpliance ith internati nal
¯   
 C  ¯6¯  treaty bligati ns n human rights;
&%# r "he State shall respect the r le  independent pe ple's 8.m Úrant immunity r m pr secuti n t any pers n h se testim ny r
rganizati ns t enable the pe ple t pursue and pr tect, ithin the h se p ssessi n  d cuments r ther evidence is necessary r
dem cratic rame rk, their legitimate and c llective interests and aspirati ns c nvenient t determine the truth in any investigati n c nducted by
thr ugh peaceul and laul means. it r under its auth rity;
3e ple's rganizati ns are b na ide ass ciati ns  citizens ith dem nstrated 9.m equest the assistance  any department, bureau, ice, r agency
capacity t pr m te the public interest and ith identiiable leadership, in the per rmance  its uncti ns;
membership, and structure. 10.m App int its icers and empl yees in acc rdance ith la; and
&%# ‰ "he right  the pe ple and their rganizati ns t eective and 11.m 3er rm such ther duties and uncti ns as may be pr vided by la.
reas nable participati n at all levels  s cial, p litical, and ec n mic decisi n "he C nstituti n did n t intend the CH t be an ther c urt r quasijudicial
making shall n t be abridged. "he State shall, by la, acilitate the agency. "he m st that may be c nceded t it is that it may    (i.e.,
establishment  adequate c nsultati n mechanisms. receive evidence and make indings  act as regards claimed human rights
3¯   vi lati ns inv lving civil and p litical rights. But actinding is n t adjudicati n
&%#? and cann t be likened t the judicial uncti n  a c urt  justice, r even a
1.m "here is hereby created an independent ice called the C mmissi n quasijudicial agency r icial. "he uncti n  receiving evidence and
n Human ights. ascertaining therer m acts  a c ntr versy is n t a judicial uncti n,
2.m "he C mmissi n shall be c mp sed  a Chairman and  ur embers pr perly speaking.
h must be naturalb rn citizens  the 3hilippines and a maj rity  " be c nsidered as such, it must be acc mpanied by the auth rity  applying
h m shall be members  the Bar. "he term  ice and ther the la t th se actual c nclusi ns t the end that the c ntr versy may be
qualiicati ns and disabilities  the embers  the C mmissi n shall decided r determined auth ritatively, inally and deinitively, subject t
be pr vided by la. appeals r m des  revie as may be pr vided by la. *  
3.m ntil this C mmissi n is c nstituted, the existing 3residential 0    (Carin v. C mmissi n n Human ights)
C mmittee n Human ights shall c ntinue t exercise its present "#%" $ *  #) +(+ %) "%& . "he c nstituti nal pr visi n
uncti ns and p ers. directing the CH t "pr vide  r preventive measures and legal aid services

‰Æ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

t the underprivileged h se human rights have been vi lated r need ¯ 


pr tecti n" may n t be c nstrued t c ner jurisdicti n n the C mmissi n t &%#  "he State shall pr tect and pr m te the right  all citizens t
issue a restraining rder r rit  injuncti n  r, i that ere the intenti n, quality educati n at all levels, and shall take appr priate steps t make such
the C nstituti n  uld have expressly said s . "urisdicti n is c nerred nly educati n accessible t all.
by the C nstituti n r by la.´ m Characteristic  gducati nal System (1) quality educati n (2) a rdable
"preventive measures and legal aid services" menti ned in the C nstituti n (3) relevant t the needs  the pe ple and s ciety
reer t extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary rit  m ight t quality educati n is n t abs lute but subject t air, reas nable
injuncti n) hich the CH may seek r m the pr per c urts n behal  the and equitable admissi n and academic requirement
victims  human rights vi lati ns.  t being a c urt  justice, the CH itsel m Úeneral ule: sch ls may n t take disciplinary acti ns  r act c mmitted
has n jurisdicti n t issue the rit,  r a rit  preliminary injuncti n may utside campus unless (1) i it is a sch l sp ns red activities r (2) the
nly be issued "by the judge  any c urt in hich the acti n is pending misc nduct aects the student¶s status r the g d name r reputati n 
[ithin his district], r by a ustice  the C urt  Appeals, r  the Supreme the sch l
C urt. (g3ZA v. CH )
"(!: *$# %( ;.During the deliberati ns  the C nstituti nal %#+3)%&+¯)$% %# .9t is the right and indeed the
C mmissi n, the C mmissi ners agreed that the term µhuman rights¶ in ur resp nsibility  the State t insure that the medical pr essi n is n t
C nstituti n  uld c ver nly civil and p litical rights in rder t make the iniltrated by inc mpetents t h m patients may unarily entrust their lives
CH m re eective. One c mmissi ner als emphasized six areas here the and health.
CH c uld act eectively:
a.m pr tecti n  rights  p litical detainees "he threelunk rule is a valid exercise  p lice p er. *    
b.m treatment  pris ners and the preventi n  t rtures upheld the c nstituti nality  the A" as a measure intended t
c.m air and public trials limit the admissi n t medical sch ls nly t th se h have initially pr ved
d.m cases  disappearances their c mpetence and preparati n  r a medical educati n.
e.m salvagings and hamletting "he right t quality educati n inv ked by the private resp ndent is #
.m ther crimes c mmitted against the religi us / +* "he C nstituti n als pr vides that "every citizen has the right t
#$,  !   . "he p er t cite  r c ntempt sh uld be ch se a pr essi n r c urse  study, subject t air, reas nable and
underst d t apply nly t vi lati ns  its ad pted perati nal guidelines equitable admissi n and academic requirements. (DgCS v. San Dieg )
and rules  pr cedure essential t carry ut its investigat rial p ers. "he &%#5"he State shall:
p er t cite  r c ntempt c uld be exercised against pers ns h reuse t 1.m gstablish, maintain, and supp rt a c mplete, adequate, and
c perate ith the said b dy, r h unduly ithh ld relevant in rmati n, r integrated system  educati n relevant t the needs  the pe ple
h decline t h n r summ ns, and the like, in pursuing its investigative and s ciety;
 rk. (Sim n r. v. CH ) 2.m gstablish and maintain, a system  ree public educati n in the
&%#G "he C ngress may pr vide  r ther cases  vi lati ns  human elementary and high sch l levels. With ut limiting the natural rights
rights that sh uld all ithin the auth rity  the C mmissi n, taking int  parents t rear their children, elementary educati n is c mpuls ry
acc unt its rec mmendati ns.  r all children  sch l age;
m "he p er  he c mmissi n is nly investigative. 9t d es n t have 3.m gstablish and maintain a system  sch larship grants, student l an
pr secut rial p ers. 9t must rely n the executive departments. 9t pr grams, subsidies, and ther incentives hich shall be available t
cann t issue rits r injuncti n deserving students in b th public and private sch ls, especially t
m "he c mmissi n can nly pr tect civil and p litical rights and n t s ci  the underprivileged;
ec n mic rights 4.m gnc urage n n rmal, in rmal, and indigen us learning systems, as
 ell as sellearning, independent, and ut sch l study pr grams
 particularly th se that resp nd t c mmunity needs; and
¯  7 ¯   ¯     ¯   5.m 3r vide adult citizens, the disabled, and ut sch l y uth ith
 ¯    training in civics, v cati nal eiciency, and ther skills.
 &%#

‰ Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

1.m All educati nal instituti ns shall include the study  the C nstituti n 4.m Subject t c nditi ns prescribed by la, all grants, end ments,
as part  the curricula. d nati ns, r c ntributi ns used actually, directly, and exclusively  r
2.m "hey shall inculcate patri tism and nati nalism,  ster l ve  educati nal purp ses shall be exempt r m tax.
humanity, respect  r human rights, appreciati n  the r le  m Ãilipinize (1) nership, (2) c ntr l and administrati n and (3) student
nati nal her es in the hist rical devel pment  the c untry, teach p pulati n
the rights and duties  citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual m Pevel  president, dean, principal, r member  the b ard  trustees are
values, devel p m ral character and pers nal discipline, enc urage Ãilipinized.
critical and creative thinking, br aden scientiic and techn l gical
kn ledge, and pr m te v cati nal eiciency. &%#r
3.m At the pti n expressed in riting by the parents r guardians, 1.m the State shall take int acc unt regi nal and sect ral needs and
religi n shall be all ed t be taught t their children r ards in c nditi ns and shall enc urage l cal planning in the devel pment 
public elementary and high sch ls ithin the regular class h urs by educati nal p licies and pr grams.
instruct rs designated r appr ved by the religi us auth rities  the 2.m Academic reed m shall be enj yed in all instituti ns  higher
religi n t hich the children r ards bel ng, ith ut additi nal c st learning.
t the Ú vernment. 3.m gvery citizen has a right t select a pr essi n r c urse  study,
&%#- subject t air, reas nable, and equitable admissi n and academic
1.m "he State rec gnizes the c mplementary r les  public and private requirements.
instituti ns in the educati nal system and shall exercise reas nable 4.m "he State shall enhance the right  teachers t pr essi nal
supervisi n and regulati n  all educati nal instituti ns. advancement.  nteaching academic and n nacademic pers nnel
2.m gducati nal instituti ns, ther than th se established by religi us shall enj y the pr tecti n  the State.
gr ups and missi n b ards, shall be ned s lely by citizens  the 5.m "he State shall assign the highest budgetary pri rity t educati n and
3hilippines r c rp rati ns r ass ciati ns at least sixty per centum  ensure that teaching ill attract and retain its rightul share  the
the capital  hich is ned by such citizens. "he C ngress may, best available talents thr ugh adequate remunerati n and ther
h ever, require increased Ãilipin equity participati n in all means  j b satisacti n and ulillment.
educati nal instituti ns. "he c ntr l and administrati n  educati nal "he  #%+!)$ include:
instituti ns shall be vested in citizens  the 3hilippines. a.m Wh may teach
b.m What may be taught
 educati nal instituti n shall be established exclusively  r aliens c.m H  it shall be taught
and n gr up  aliens shall c mprise m re than nethird  the d.m Wh may be admitted t study (includes h may be
enr llment in any sch l. "he pr visi ns  this sub secti n shall n t expelled r h may n t be admitted)
apply t sch ls established  r  reign dipl matic pers nnel and their "he right  the sch l t discipline is included in the third and  urth reed m.
dependents and, unless therise pr vided by la,  r ther  reign 9t is n t nly a right  the instituti n, but a duty t devel p discipline in its
temp rary residents. students.
3.m All revenues and assets  n nst ck, n npr it educati nal "he p er  the sch l t investigate is an adjunct  its p er t suspend r
instituti ns used actually, directly, and exclusively  r educati nal expel. 9t is a necessary c r llary t the en rcement  rules and regulati ns
purp ses shall be exempt r m taxes and duties. p n the diss luti n and the maintenance  a sae and rderly educati nal envir nment c nducive
r cessati n  the c rp rate existence  such instituti ns, their t learning. (iriam C llege v. CA)
assets shall be disp sed  in the manner pr vided by la. Academic reed m  instituti ns  higher learning is rec gnized by the
C nstituti n. "he sch l decides  r itsel its aims and bjectives and h  best
3r prietary educati nal instituti ns, including th se c peratively t attain them. 9t is ree r m utside c erci n r intererence save p ssibly
ned, may likeise be entitled t such exempti ns, subject t the hen the verriding public elare calls  r s me restraint. 9t has a ide
limitati ns pr vided by la, including restricti ns n dividends and sphere  aut n my certainly extending t the ch ice  students.
pr visi ns  r reinvestment. "he internal c nditi ns  r academic reed m in a university are that the
academic sta sh uld have de act c ntr l  the  ll ing uncti ns: (i) the

‰- Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m
m

admissi n and examinati n  students; (ii) the curricula  r c urses  study; incentives shall be pr vided t deserving science students, researchers,
(iii) the app intment and tenure  ice  academic sta; and (iv) the scientists, invent rs, techn l gists, and specially gited citizens.
all cati n  inc me am ng the dierent categ ries  expenditure. (Úarcia v. &%#5 "he State shall regulate the transer and pr m te the adaptati n
Ãaculty Admissi n)  techn l gy r m all s urces  r the nati nal beneit. 9t shall enc urage the
Sch ls  teaming(sic) are given ample discreti n t  rmulate rules and idest participati n  private gr ups, l cal g vernments, and c mmunity
guidelines in the granting  h n rs  r purp ses  graduati n. "his is part  based rganizati ns in the generati n and utilizati n  science and
academic reed m. Within the parameters  these rules, it is ithin the techn l gy.
c mpetence  universities and c lleges t determine h are entitled t the &%#  "he State shall pr tect and secure the exclusive rights 
grant  h n rs am ng the graduating students. 9ts discreti n n this scientists, invent rs, artists, and ther gited citizens t their intellectual
academic matter may n t be disturbed much less c ntr lled by the c urts pr perty and creati ns, particularly hen beneicial t the pe ple,  r such
unless there is grave abuse  discreti n in its exercise. ( niversity  San peri d as may be pr vided by la.
Carl s v. CA) ¯  ¯ 
¯ ¯  &%#- "he State shall  ster the preservati n, enrichment, and dynamic
&%#‰ "he nati nal language  the 3hilippines is Ãilipin . As it ev lves, it ev luti n  a Ãilipin nati nal culture based n the principle  unity in
shall be urther devel ped and enriched n the basis  existing 3hilippine and diversity in a climate  ree artistic and intellectual expressi n.
ther languages. Subject t pr visi ns  la and as the C ngress may deem
appr priate, the Ú vernment shall take steps t initiate and sustain the use  Secti n 15. Arts and letters shall enj y the patr nage  the State. "he State
Ãilipin as a medium  icial c mmunicati n and as language  instructi n shall c nserve, pr m te, and p pularize the nati n's hist rical and cultural
in the educati nal system. heritage and res urces, as ell as artistic creati ns.
&%# ? à r purp ses  c mmunicati n and instructi n, the icial &%# ‰ All the c untry's artistic and hist ric ealth c nstitutes the
languages  the 3hilippines are Ãilipin and, until therise pr vided by la, cultural treasure  the nati n and shall be under the pr tecti n  the State
gnglish. "he regi nal languages are the auxiliary icial languages in the hich may regulate its disp siti n.
regi ns and shall serve as auxiliary media  instructi n therein. Spanish and &%# ? "he State shall rec gnize, respect, and pr tect the rights 
Arabic shall be pr m ted n a v luntary and pti nal basis. indigen us cultural c mmunities t preserve and devel p their cultures,
m Ãilipin is a language c nsisting  a usi n  the vari us 3hilippine traditi ns, and instituti ns. 9t shall c nsider these rights in the  rmulati n 
languages. nati nal plans and p licies.
m Oicial Panguage: Ãilipin and gnglish and Spanish &%#@
&%# @ "his C nstituti n shall be pr mulgated in Ãilipin and gnglish and 1.m "he State shall ensure equal access t cultural pp rtunities thr ugh
shall be translated int maj r regi nal languages, Arabic, and Spanish. the educati nal system, public r private cultural entities,
&%# G "he C ngress shall establish a nati nal language c mmissi n sch larships, grants and ther incentives, and c mmunity cultural
c mp sed  representatives  vari us regi ns and disciplines hich shall centers, and ther public venues.
undertake, c rdinate, and pr m te researches  r the devel pment, 2.m "he State shall enc urage and supp rt researches and studies n the
pr pagati n, and preservati n  Ãilipin and ther languages. arts and culture.
¯     
&%# J Science and techn l gy are essential  r nati nal devel pment &%#G
and pr gress. "he State shall give pri rity t research and devel pment, 1.m "he State shall pr m te physical educati n and enc urage sp rts
inventi n, inn vati n, and their utilizati n; and t science and techn l gy pr grams, league c mpetiti ns, and amateur sp rts, including
educati n, training, and services. 9t shall supp rt indigen us, appr priate, and training  r internati nal c mpetiti ns, t  ster seldiscipline,
selreliant scientiic and techn l gical capabilities, and their applicati n t the team rk, and excellence  r the devel pment  a healthy and alert
c untry's pr ductive systems and nati nal lie. citizenry.
&%#  "he C ngress may pr vide  r incentives, including tax 2.m All educati nal instituti ns shall undertake regular sp rts activities
deducti ns, t enc urage private participati n in pr grams  basic and thr ugh ut the c untry in c perati n ith athletic clubs and ther
applied scientiic research. Sch larships, grantsinaid, r ther  rms  sect rs.


‰r Sandy Crab and the plagiarist 1A 2010


m