CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
A. 2-27-19 DISCUSSION not breach the individual, there are provisions under pertinent laws that have
GR- bill of rights cannot be invoke against private individuals; can only be invoke
against the state
EXC- there are provisions under the law that can use bill of rights against private
individual
Question 1. On 14 February 2020, the Philippine Congress reinstated Death Penalty
which resulted to the imposition of death on at least 100 inmates starting April 2020,
the effectivity of the law. Amnesty International sought the aid of the UN Special
Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council asking them to issue letters of
condemnation against the Philippines Congress. Both the UNSR and HRC issued
statements condemning the acts of the Philippine Congress and calling it against the
provisions of international human rights law instruments to which the Philippines is a
signatory.
The Philippine Congress seeks your advice if the law is inconsistent with Article III,
Section 1. What will be your advice?
 CECISTA- the provision is self-explanatory and it is a straight to the point
provision.
Question 2. Mr. A, the lawyer of Corporation X, was accused of keeping some
corporate records of Corporation Y which is a corporate stockholder of Corporation X.
One day, Corporation X asked the help of C, a retired Navy Seal operative, to take the
corporate records from Mr. A. C got busted.
Corporation X filed a damage suit against C claiming exclusively that there was a
violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizure found in Article III,
Section 2. How will you rule on the matter?
 CECISTA- Rules and jurisprudence are very much consistent with Art 3 of the
1987 Consti.
 The first fundamental rule we have to remember in the bill of rights, is that it is
not or it may not be invoked against private individuals. Here is what you have
to remember, the provisions in the Bill of Rights are basically limitations on the
State, so the limitations do not apply to individuals but take it as a general rule.
Just because Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against individuals it does not
mean that the Bill of Rights provision do not have any manifestation in private
dealings with each other.
 For example, Mr. Alganion started a lawsuit against Mr. Mabale, he has been
saying bad things about Mr. Mabale’s personality, that it is bad, etc. Take note
that while it is indeed true that the Bill of Rights provision regarding privacy does
1
certain manifestations from Bill of Rights.
 Can you file a case against Mr. Mabale? You can, 2 cases may be filed a civil case
and a criminal case. 1st civil case you cannot vex your neighbor, Art 26 of the
Civil code. You cannot start chismis against your neighbor. 2nd criminal case
which could be libel, defamation, etc. the point is while this laws is not found in
the Constitution, this laws have traces from the Constitution.
 How about due process, is there an instance where due process can be invoked
against an individual?
 So many, in fact it may be the most abused, most used provision except Art
19 of the CC.
 For example, some teachers wildly complained about a student for cheating.
Must the school offer due process to the student? Yes, even if the school,
supposedly the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against a school which has a
private personality.
 2nd what if an employee is found cheating at work, cheating at his hours,
logging out early, etc., can you suspend your employee? You can, but must you
give your employee due process? You must.
 So how do you answer this question when bill of Rights may be invoked against
an individual.
 Yes, generally the Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the State but it
does not mean that the provisions of the Bill of Rights could not find
manifestations in transactions between private individuals, whether
natural or juridical persons. They always have traces. So that is question #2.
Question 3. (2 questions, next slide)
Who determines probable cause for issuance of warrant or arrest or arrest warrant?
 It’s the judge. When will the judge be able to determine, whether there is
probable cause? How will it reach its desk?
Can anyone be arrested without warrant of arrest?
 1.Determine what case to be filed
 2.Present evidences supporting the case
 3.The fiscal/judge will determine if there is probable cause in pursuing the
case, the fiscal/judge don’t have the duty to look for evidences beyond
reasonable doubt.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
 Once the fiscal/ judge determines the probable cause, the court cannot deny
the same bec it would be encroachment, except in issuing arrest warrants.
 Can the judge rely solely on the prosecutor with regards to probable cause?
 can issue search warrant without a case, why?
 search warrant allows u to have a case against an individual
 in search warrant, mere probable cause is enough and not 100% certainty
 Suppose in our example a while ago,
 Mr. Mabale decided to file a case against Mr. Alganion what is his 1st step?
Determine what case shall be filed. Now Mr. Mabale decide to file a
criminal case against Mr. Alganion because he thinks there is an
interrorim?? Effect when it comes to criminal case and Mr. Alganion is a
rich man he can easily pay off whatever civil damages would be levied
against him, if it was a civil case. He wants to see Mr. Alganion in jail.
 What is his 1st step? He goes to the fiscal first. Can he go to a private
lawyer 1st? of course, that is what usually rich people do, they go to a
private lawyer and asks for help, but what can a private lawyer do? The
private lawyer can actually make the affidavit to be submitted to the fiscal.
 Btw why is the fiscal needed? In criminal law, violations against the criminal
rules of the state is actually a violation not just to the individual but also the
state, primarily, because the State keeps peace and order in the country. So
what happens to the individual who’s supposedly is the injured party, he
becomes a witness to the state, so that the state can pursue his case. So what
do you do:
 1.You go the fiscal
 2.Present evidence to the fiscal to support your case
 3.The fiscal will determine whether there is probable cause.
 The judge and fiscal determines probable cause, the difference is that the fiscal
determines whether the state’s funds should be spent on pursuing your cause,
whether there is an actual cause to be filed in court but the fiscal is not required
to find proof beyond reasonable doubt and it is not their executive function but
it is judiciary.
 So the 1st finding of probable cause is to the fiscal, the question simply is that
“Is it likely that this person committing this offense as presented by the
complainant and as proved by the witnesses and pieces of evidence presented
before me?
2
 ANS: Yes, then the fiscal goes to court stating that he has found probable
cause so I am filing this criminal case, now it becomes People of the
Philippines and the case will go on.
 But, the usual situation, let’s say it is a heinous crime, rape, pag-abot sa fiscal
ang ni-abot kay ang rape victim, child, with the parents. The first question is”
Fiscal can we arrest the suspect?” the fiscal would answer that she cannot
because the provision only requires that it is the judge that can issue the
warrant of arrest. So how exactly will the judge issue a warrant if arrest, in
reality the judge will issue the warrant of arrest but the judge will not ask if
there is a case because that is decided on the case already and if the judge will
say “there is no probable cause I will dismiss the case” that is not consistent
with the rules because the one who decides that will be the state, the
prosecutor.
 Btw, the prosecutor is under the DOJ and the DOJ is under the executive branch,
and as you know the executive branch is separate from the judiciary. So the
fundamental of political law and criminal law combined, you already know that
once the fiscal determines probable cause to file the case and it reaches the
court, the court cannot say “fiscal you are wrong” because that is encroachment
on the separation of powers. However, the court is granted the sole discretion
to determine the probable cause not in the filing of the case but the issuance of
the arrest warrant or warrant of arrest.
 The judge determines that arrest warrant may be issued, what must the judge
do or what will the judge require from the prosecutor? (refer to the provision)
Can the judge rely solely on the finding of the prosecutor?
 ANS: No.
 Must there be finding of probable cause before an search warrant may be
issued?
 ANS: It does not need a case. You can just go to the judge.
 Why do you think that is allowed in our laws? Why is search warrant allowed to
be issued without a case yet a warrant of arrest can never be issued without a
case?
 ANS: The logic is that if you have a search warrant, it allows you to build a
case against and individual because sometimes you are not really sure.
 In a search warrant does it require that you must find the items written in the
warrant? Must the judge be extremely convinced that the item is there? What is
the requirement under the Constitution?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
 ANS: No. Under the Constitution the judge is only required to determine
probable cause. The judge must only be satisfied that there is a probability
that it may be found there based on the evidence that the items to be
found or seized will be found on that area before he issues the search
warrant.
 Not a lot of people get arrested without a warrant of arrest, most of them get
arrested without a warrant. What do you think are the instances that a person
may be arrested without a warrant of arrest? (refer to criminal law)
 1.In flagrante delicto doctrine
 2.Hot pursuit
 3.Escapee of a penal institution
 What happens next after being arrested?
 ANS: He is delivered to the person in authority then he is detained. After
he is detained the fiscal will not determine probable cause, the fiscal in this
case will not inquest because he was arrested without a warrant, so the
process is different.
Question 3.1. The police force of Cebu received a confidential information that Ralph,
a notorious drug pusher, recently outfitted a condominium in Ramos to be his shabu
lab. The condominium is called City Suites and the police was informed that the
Shabu Lab was either in 1201. The police raided 1201 but found nothing there.
Thinking that the lab might on other rooms, the police raided 1202 and 1203.
They found the shabu lab on 1203. Is there any irregularity?
 it is important to determine the place to be searched bec the house is the safe
place of a person, and to remove the arbitrariness of the search.
 police officers are not prohibited to take illegal things that are not stated in the
search warrant through plain view doctrine, so long as it is in plain view or
apparent.
 What is the requirement under the Constitution with respect to search warrants,
particularly describing?
 ANS: Place to be searched or the person or things to be seized.
 Why should they specify the place to searched?
 ANS: It should be specific because you have to remove the arbitrariness
from the people who are executing the warrant, either the search warrant
or the warrant of arrest.
3
 Usually the search warrant will indicate the following the property and the
things to be searched. Now you enter the property suddenly you see
pornographic materials involving children, which was not indicated in the search
warrant, can you get the? On what basis?
 ANS: Yes. The plain-view doctrine. Though the officers are limited to seize
those that is only specified in the warrant, logically you cannot stop police
officers from getting obviously illegal things in that particular vicinity. If it
was not specified in the warrant, it cannot be taken unless it is in
plain-view, if not then it would be inadmissible in court.
Question 4. Atty. N is a professor of law in Harvard Pod College, Cebu City. One day
he noticed that one of his students posted a cheat sheet of the exam he was about to
give. Apparently, students have been compiling past exams to be distributed to other
students. Atty. N took a screenshot of the post and reported the matter to the Dean.
The school issued a suspension against the student and a complaint was filed by the
student claiming that there was a violation of his right to privacy. Decide.
 publicly posted (e.g in FB posted through friends)= cannot expect privacy.
ANS: They cannot invoke Article 3 Section 3. (something about private and
public persons.)
 JED: evidence inadmissible because public officer who obtain the evidence is not
allowed, if private individual= admissible
 once u have identified the suspect, and the suspect started his testimony w/o
hearing his miranda rights, evidence is not yet admissible unless it is relayed to a
private individual because bill of rights cannot be invoked against private
individuals.
 “toxic masculinity is bad” pipi baho cecista
 To differentiate the difference between the private and public person here is an
example, Mr. Mabale continued with the case against Mr. Alganion, but the case
is now more heinous. Mr Mabale accuses Mr. Alganion of raping his daughter.
Mr. Alganion was arrested in their house, when he was arrested Mr. Alganion
started crying like a human being. Mr. Alganion started telling the story on how
he raped and where he hid the body of the child to the police officer. Is the
testimony admissible in Court?
 ANS: The requirement under the Constitution is that, if you are already
identified as a suspect then you must be informed of your Miranda Rights.
The problem is that even if the public officer did not seek to know this
information once he identified the person to be the probable suspect in
the offense, the person cannot help but to say this thing to the public
officer especially if the person is not an expert in raping. Those testimony
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
or evidence will not be admissible. But here is what usually happens, B. 3-2-19 DISCUSSION- NO PPT SHOWN
before the police arrives the media will be there, the suspect will now start
admitting to the media how he did it and where he hid the body, this time QUESTION 6:
the provisions of the Bill of Rights will not apply any longer. So the  ANS: religion clause in the consti, what does it prohibit?
testimony of the media personnel of the admittance of the suspect will
now be admissible in Court because the provisions are not against private  non-establishment also includes support
individuals. QUESTION 8.1 ANS: Sec 5
Question 5. Kapatid is a group of students/activists who have been staging rallies all  can the state compel a religious group, prohibited by their religion, to join a
over the Philippines to call for the resignation of one of the members of the Cabinet, union?
Pastor R, who happens to be the head of a religious ministry called DRP. DRP
threatened that if Kapatid will continue its calls for the resignation of Pastor R, DRP  No. the state cannot compel a religious group to do something bec man
stands higher before any being such as the state is created.
members all over the country will go to EDSA and conduct a mass protest against
Kapatid congressmen. In response, the government issued a moratorium on the QUESTION 8.2: Sec 6
issuance of all rallies and public gatherings in the Metro Manila area.
QUESTION 9: sec 7
Is there any Constitutional issue here?
 Cecista- on going negotiations cannot be disclosed to public bec of executive
 ANS: Yes. It violates the right to assemble. privilege. Bec other countries will lost interest in entering treaties with us
 How to answer an argument:  can the public compel the congress to disclose their academic records?
 1.Identify the provision first  Yes
 2.Identify what is violated in the provision Question 10: sec 7
 3.Apply the provision  is there specific basis to compel the to release the info for the policy dev?
 When the provision states no law, does that automatically mean that the President  Yes
cannot breach your freedom of speech since the president cannot pass laws? The
Question 11: sec 8
President will issue an Executive Order and this is not a law, is it a valid or good
argument?  Cecista - striking to demand work from the superior, the superior can lock out
the company but teachers cant do this (it is prohibited from forming strikes or rallies)
 ANS: It is still violative of the provision. (mao ni ang answer sa nag recite
bec wages in the gov’t are not given by their respective departmen bu through a nat’l
but Atty. Cesista did not confirm or deny the answer.)
wage.
Question 6. The President issued an order designating certain portions of
Question12: sec 10
government offices as prayer corner for Christians and Catholics. This order is only
effective in areas that are predominantly Christians and Catholics. A similar order was  do u agree with the non-impairment law?
issued this time to make Muslim corners in predominantly Muslim places
 Cecista - SEC 11
1. Defend the issuance.
 Sec 12: the role of the council is to preclude the slightest possible information that
2. Argue against the issuance. would incriminate the accused. Only applicable to testimonial and not on the body
or mechanical acts bec it requires u to do something. (lie detector test is a
testimony)

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
 Cecista- admission via writing (Ppl v Marcos) is admissible if done in open court,
thus, removed from the concept of custodial investigation.
 Sec 13:
C. 3-6-19 DISCUSSION- film showing how Bill of Rights, UDHR
and treaties are created.
 Gave assignment to read Bernas, Cruz and Nachura during the interregnum.
 (Nachura) Republic v Sandiganbayan
D. 3-9-19 DISCUSSION
Due Process
Look at the brilliant dissent by J. Perfecto
The due process clause ... of course tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it
makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right of life, liberty, and
property, which the Congress of the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system
of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of
the law.... But the farmers and adopters of this (Fourteenth) Amendment were not
content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due process clause, or upon
the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They
therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty. The guaranty was aimed at
undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile
discrimination or the oppression of Inequality, on the other. It sought an equality of
treatment of all persons, even though all enjoyed the protection of due process.
Serrano v. NLRC (2000)
Petitioner Ruben Serrano, head of the Security Checkers Section of Isetann, herein
private respondent, was served with a letter dated October 11, 1991 informing him
of his termination effective on the same date on the ground of retrenchment to the
effect that the company will phase out its entire security section and engage the
services of an independent security agency.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed against Isetann by petitioner, the Labor
Arbiter found, among others, that Isetann failed to establish that retrenchment was
resorted to in order to prevent or minimize losses to its business and that it failed to
accord petitioner due process for failure to serve prior notice.
5
Assuming that Serrano was not given notice and hearing, was there a violation of due
process under the Bill of Rights?
No, for three reasons.
The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on
governmental powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private power, such as the
termination of employment under the Labor Code. This is plain from the text of Art.
III, 61 of the Constitution viz.: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. ...." The reason is simple: Only the State has authority to
take the life. liberty, or property of the individual. The purpose of the Due Process
Clause is to ensure that the exercise of this power is consistent with what are
considered civilized methods.
The second reason is that notice and hearing are required under the Due Process
Clause before the power of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual.
This is obviously not the case of termination of employment under Art. 283. Here the
employee is not faced with an aspect of the adversary system. The purpose for
requiring a 30-day written notice before an employee is laid off is not to afford him
an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. The purpose
rather is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an
opportunity to determine whether economic causes do exist justifying the
termination of his employment.
The third reason why the notice requirement under Art. 283 can not be considered a
requirement of the Due Process Clause is that the employer cannot really be
expected to be entirely an impartial judge of his own cause.
Justice Puno disputes this major principle in the context of a grievance machinery
"Since the right of (an employee) to his labor is in itself a property and that the labor
agreement between him and [his employer) is the law between the parties, his
summary and arbitrary dismissal amounted to deprivation of his property without
due process of law."
Last slide for Serrano v NLRC- photo not clear
Republic v. SB, Maj. Gen. Ramos and Dimaano
Timeline;
- 23-25 Feb. 1986 - EDSA Revolution
- 28 Feb 1986 - creation of the PCGG
- 24 March 1986 - interregnum, Revolutionary rule
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA
The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
President Aquino's, the EDSA Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
the 1973 Constitution." The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary reputation.
government bound by no Constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines,
attacks.
assumed under international law. The correct issues are: (1) whether the
revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution during
the Interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of power by the
UDHR Provision on arbitrary interference (photo not clear)
revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up
to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution); Preamble
and (1) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International
Article 12
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect during the interregnum

Laurel v. Misa
According to the pleadings, the petitioner, a Filipino citizen, was arrested in
Camarines Sur in May, 1945, by the United States Army, and was interned, under a
commitment order "for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the
Japanese Occupation." but in September, 1945, he was turned over to the
Commonwealth Government, and since then has been under the custody of the
respondent Director of Prisons.
But this looks like in conflict with Article 125 of the RPC which took effect on 1 Jan.
1925.
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities.
The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public
of cer or employee who shall detain any person for somo legal ground and shall fallo
deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12)
hours, lo crimes or offenses pun shable by light penalbes, or the equivalent eighteen
(18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishadle by correctional penaltes, or their
equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by allicive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent in every case, the person detained shall be
informed of the cause of his detention and shall be a lowed upon his request, to
communicate and conter at any time with his abomey or counsel (As amended by E.O.
Nos 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).

ICCPR Provision on arbitrary interference

Article 17.