LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY

How would u know the extent of the interference that violates the bill of right?
- depends on the nature of the right and the purpose of the interference
- The essence of due process is the removal of arbitrary interference in life, liberty and property. Thus, due process
contemplates of a law which hears it before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgement only after
trial.

ON PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. A person cannot claim property right over a public office; but the discharge of a public office by a lawful occupant is a
protected right.
2. Government cannot interfere with one’s profession arbitrarily.
3. Juridical entities are covered with due process in so far as their properties are covered

DUE PROCESS
1. Substantive – serves as a restriction on the law-making and rule-making power of the government.
a) The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, should be fair, reasonable and just.
It guarantees against arbitrary power even when exercised according to proper forms and procedure.
b) Police Power is the least limitable, it is plane plenary.
c) Disini Case- substantive due process does not have to be imposed against u, it can be violative of common rights.
2. Procedural – serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the
method or manner by which law is enforce.
a) With respect of processes there is the Rules of Court by virtue of Article 8 of the Consti.
b) The rules of court is a supplementary law

Fundamentally due process is the right to be heard.

ALIENS AN DUE PROCESS (Villegas vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho)

- requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the city mayor of manila who may withhold or refuse it
at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the PH to engage in a means of livelihood.
- once an alien is admitted in the PH, he cannot be deprived of life w/o due process of law. This includes the means of
livelihood. The shelter of protection is applicable to all, aliens and citizens of the country.
- being an alien is a substantive difference but being an alien is not a reason for the state to violate their right to due process
of law.

Fundamental requirements for a valid classification:

1. Substantial difference
2. Germane to the purpose of the law

EMPLOYEES AND DUE PROCESS (Rivera vs Genesis Transport)

When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession.
- procedural due process does not only appear in the court. PDP is not judicial,

PROPERTY RIGHT: PRIVILEGE (Republic vs Rosemoore)

May the state unilaterally cancel an existing mining/ logging permit w/o notice and hearing?
- yes, of course. Being a mere privilege, a license does not vest absolute rights in the holder. Bec supposedly it should be the
state doing the mining but due to lack of financial and technical assistance the state have to enter co-production.
Article XII, Section 2. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control or supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60% of
whose capital is owned by such citizens.
- The consti does not divest the state any rights to supervise.
- Mass Media- 100% Filipino
- exploration of natural resources- 100% Filipino
- Corporations- 60% Filipino and 40% Foreigners, only to the extent that they can protect their rights. Any more than that is
very wrong bec the state cannot easily take the natural resources w/o violating due process bec they are aliens and not the
citizen of the PH.
- direct management of foreigners is allowing foreigners to explore our natural resources- eng eng very wrong.

WHAT CONSTITUTES PRIVILEGE?

- the state can take it away even w/o violating due process
- most of the time covers public utilities bec the state is supposedly the one controlling them.
- supposedly public utilities offered by the Gov’t., the latter shouldn’t have financial interest over it bec its BASIC need of the
people.

PROPERTY RIGHT AND PUBLIC OFFICE

May a public official be preventively suspended on the basis of ex-parte hearing (no notice)?
- no, it is however, well settled that a public office is not property w/in the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due
process of law bec the relationship is between agency and trust.

KINDS OF EX PARTE:
1. NO NOTICE- The other party does not know when is the hearing
2. WITHOUT PARTICIPATION- Knows about the hearing but was not allowed to present evidence even if u want to present
evidence.

CECISTA: for me public office is a property right bec the salary is directly given to u
> public office is not a property right bec the relationship is between public and trust, nonetheless due process must be
observed

Substantive due process (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, GR 139465)- Due process is comprised of 2 components -
Substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life,
liberty, or property. It fundamentally requires the concurrence of general welfare, lawful subject and lawful means.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Requisites: (CJIAD)
1. Court/ tribunal clothed w/ judicial power to hear and decide the case
- most of the time the law will determine the jurisdiction of the case, sometimes rules of regulation.
Jurisdiction- is the kind of court that will hear ur case. determined by law, it is where u file the case
Venue- the place where the case will be heard or where the tribunal will hold hearings

2. Jurisdiction of the person and the of the things lawfully acquired

C: u can forever run away from a case, go to another country bec they don’t have jurisdiction over u. no jurisdiction, case will
not prosper.

A. CRIMINAL CASE: (case b/w the state and the accused and the complainant becomes a witness)
Procedure:
I. Filing of affidavit in the prosecutor
II. Determining probable cause by the prosecutor (prosecutor under DOJ, SC under Judiciary
III. Arraignment
- under criminal cases, in accordance with the due process of law, the accused should be under the jurisdiction of the
court through arraignment.
- when does the court acquires jurisdiction?
> once it filed before the court, arraignment will come wherein the accused will be asked “are u guilty or not” and
the accused will appear and answer the question, then the court have jurisdiction over the accused.

- can a lawyer appear in an arraignment and not be under the jurisdiction of the court?
> yes, just appear there and contest the jurisdiction of the court. The court cannot compel u to have jurisdiction
over u.

Motion to quash- to contest the jurisdiction of the fiscal

B. CIVIL CASE (Private matters between private persons) directly go to court and not fiscal bec the state have no
interest
Summons- is a pleading filed in court, like a counter affidavit. The answer of the other party in a pleading form for due
process filed in court not fiscal.
a) If the person to be summoned indicates a wrong address the court can issue summons through publications
and published it abroad or the persons last known address
b) If the person did not answer, the court will not have jurisdiction over the person but still have jurisdiction
over property of the person, which is more important.
c) U can easily run from a civil case but if u go to another country the court can go after u there, by publishing
summons even abroad.
d) The tribunal must have jurisdiction over the person and property but only in civil cases
Labor arbiter is a quasi-judicial body that is attach to the court
 C. ADMIN CASES
GR: must have notice of hearing duly accepted by a person (applicable to non-governmental agencies)
e.g school- there is due process

EXC:

3. Accused has the right to be heard (LIM vs CA)

Lim Started revoking licenses, businesses claimed violated due process. SC said the consti expressly allows the mayors to
issue licenses. However, it is not stated that he is allowed to revoke licenses without due process.

Differentiate the Lim case w/ closure of establishments w/o business permits.

W/ business permit- In Lim case the businesses have business permits but violates the terms of their business permit but
at the very least Lim should have given them notice in order not to violate their right to due process.
W/o business permit- businesses don’t have an authority and standing to appear, Mayors can close such businesses w/o
prior notice.

ADMIN DUE PROCESS (Bunot vs Prila)

- A fair and reasonable opportunity to explain 1 side
Civil Service Commission dismissed the case filed

OMBUDSMAN (Roxas vs Vasquez)

Ombudsman complied with the due process to be heard but sc said violated procedural due process bec it is not enough to
present evidence but also must be notified about it.

TRIAL (Dy Teban Trading vs Dy)

Cross examination is a matter of right granted to a litigant under the rules of court. There is no violation of cross examination,
failure to observe the right can be implied as a waiver.
What happens when u waive ur right to cross-examine?
Implied waiver of right to cross examine- allowed

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
X hires A to be his counsel on multiple lawsuit against Y. RTC, X lost, believing that there was grave abuse of discretion, A filed
a certiorari in the SC. Meanwhile the reglementary period for appeal is running. SC dismissed the certiorari for violating
hierarchy of courts and for being a wrong remedy. X fired A and hired C. C then filed an appeal but was denied due to
prescription. C argued that X should not be bound for the negligence of counsel bec that denies X’s due process.

SC said there is no violation of due process.

GR: Ur client is bound by ur mistake and negligence and vice-versa.
EXC: if there is gross negligence/ violation of a fundamental rule of ur counsel

Certiorari- filed in the SC

Appeal- filed in the CA first

ACADEMIC DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Schools have academic disciplinary proceeding:
1. be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them
2. Right to answer the charges w/ assistance of counsel if desired
3. Informed about the evidence against them
4. Have the right to adduce evidence in their own-behalf
5. Evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or the fiscal

DUE PROCESS AND RIGHT TO APPEAL

GR: Appeal is not a right but a statutory privilege and not part of due process,
EXC: It is only part of due process only when it is viewed as an remedy for a period of time.
- the time for appeal is jurisdictional, the appealing court has no option but to reject it bec it will affect its jurisdiction if it has
been filed belatedly
- requirements for appeal must be strictly complied with

DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Legal defense steps:
A. Sec 1 preliminary investigation
 a) Preliminary Inquiry- appears in the bill of rights, done by the judge for the issuance of an arrest warrant;
b) Preliminary Investigation- done by the fiscal when there is probable cause to file a case; penalty is 4yrs 2mos and
1 day
c) Inquest- done by the fiscal, arresting a person with valid warrant, u have to bring him to the fiscal on a preliminary
investigation then the fiscal will conduct an inquest.
- the arresting officer may bring the accused to a detention center or fiscal if penalty is lower than 4yrs 2mos and 1 day

B. Sec 7 When accused lawfully arrested w/o warrant

d) Ur client can go into inquest (if ur confident that ur not guilty)
e) Or u can ask the fiscal to conduct prelim invest w/c takes longer but u can be held in jail for a longer period of time
too.

DE LIMA vs REYES
- de lima issued the creation of panel prosecutors to investigate and later on ordered re-investigation moto proprio, SC said
no violation of due process bec all these prosecutors are under the command of the SOJ and the latter can over turn their
decision.

Jinggoy Estrada vs Ombudsman

- there are rumors that Jinggoy’s co-accused will have statements inconsistent with his, so he wanted to ask for a copy of
affidavit of his co-accused no law or rule to furnish a respondent a copy of a counter-affidavit of his co-respondents. Rules of
Court allows the respondent to EXAMINE but not to SEE his co-respondents counter-affidavit.

4. Decision rendered upon hearing.

Admin due process: (RRDSD) Ang tibay as cited in Estrada
I. Right to a hearing
II. Right to present evidences
III. A decision w/ absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity
IV. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevance evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.
V. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing
- substantial evidence = administrative case
- proof beyond reasonable doubt = criminal case
- the tribunal cannot ignore what it already knows, thus, they should rule properly including evidences not presented by the
parties

EQUAL PROTECTION
- requires all things similarly situated to be treated alike both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
- Req:
1. Substantial distinction- makes real differences
E.g imposing higher penalty to crim using ICT (considered as an aggravating circumstance), SC said that vast potential and
benefits
2. Germane to the purpose of the law
3. not limited to existing conditions
4. must apply to the same class

Disini vs SOJ
- cyber crime is an aggravating circumstance. With the use of cyberspace can fraud a lot of people across different borders
- the vast potential

SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Stonehill vs Diokno)

Who can invoke the right?
- A and B are shareholders of Corp X. BIR Received info that Corp X is doing illegal stuff in violation of NIRC and other laws.
Raid was conducted were a lot of items were seized. Bec of this, it resulted to some info that would affect the corporation
particularly A and B violating heir rights, thus, inadmissible in court. SC said A and B is incorrect bec corporations and its
shareholders have different personality. Shareholders liability is only limited up to shareholders contribution.
- rights of the corporation and other rights cannot be invoked by the shareholders. The corp can only invoke the right against
unreasonable search and seizure if represented usually by the president.
ZONES OF PRIVACY
DECISIONAL PRIVACY- involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions
INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY- refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. This is the one that opposes
government collection or recording of traffic data in real-time seek to protect.
- Aspect of IP:
I. Right to have private information disclosed
II. Right to live freely w/o surveillance and intrusion.

- 2 tests to know if a situation/ matter deserves right to privacy:

I. Subjective test- one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over a certain matter.
(Expectation of privacy)
II. Objective test- his/her right to privacy must be one that the society is prepared to accept as objectively acceptable.

VIVARES VS STC
- SC said that u can only expect privacy on FB if u limit the privacy to urself.

Bello-henares vs guevarra
- argument that he/she limited the privacy in FB to his/her friends only is dumb, it does not guarantee absolute protection
from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one’s circle of friends. The user’s own Facebook friend can
share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is
Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook
friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at
“Friends.”

HUMAN SECURITY ACT (RA 9372)

The police wants to intercept the telephone conversation of the following individuals. What is the legal process that the
police must take?
1. A- a journalist, who is in the list of policemen as possibly a violent dissident.
2. B- a suspended member of boko haram, in the PH
3. C- lawyer of Nur Misuari

Section 7 of HSA- only the CA can issue an interception order but must be reference to judicially declared outlawed assoc or
persons suspected of the crime terrorism, that surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers
and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be
authorized.

Rule 126: Sect 1- search warrant- an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the
court

Requisites for a valid warrant of arrest:

1. Probable cause
a) Search warrant- A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a
crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demand more than bare
suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction the judge, in determining probable cause, is
to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula, and must
employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard. (Del Castillo v People GR 185128)
b) Warrant of arrest- has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. (Agcaoili v
Molina AM 94-979)
c) Personal determination of the judge
1st problem:
- Conduct a full and searching examination of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce.
- the judge must ask probing and exhaustive questions so that the accused have the opportunity to defend himself.
- arrest warrants are usually issued on thursdays and fridays for the accused to stay in jail.

2nd problem:
- DOJ Secretary cannot make buot buot the judges how the latter will find probable cause bec it should be through
personal determination by the judge and DOJ Sec is from another department.
2. Particularity in description of the person to be arrested/things to be searched/ seized
1st problem: Ppl vs Tee
- not specifying what kind of thing to be seized does not amount to invalidity of the warrant while it is true to particularly
describe the thing to be seized or person to be arrested but the technical description of the thing to be seized is not required.
- vallejo vs CA- technical description is not required

Why is there a need to particularly identify?

1. Readily seized the thing
2. Prevents unreasonable searches and seizures

EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT (RULE 126, ROC)

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed
search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any
part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
unlawfully detained therein. (6)
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or
any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (7a)
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts
that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. (8)
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be
void. (9a)

SCATTERSHOT WARRANT- Arrest warrants are those that include 2 or more offenses a once, deemed to be void bec for each
warrant of arrest must be issued for one offense only.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IPMCCSE

1. Incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Plain view
- REQUISITES
a) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in pursuit of their
official duties.
b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are
c) Evidence must be immediately apparent
d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence w/o further search
3. Search of a moving vehicle- open the trunk/u-box or flashlight or underneath the car. They are not allowed intrusive
search, except if there is probable cause.
4. Consented warrantless search- refers to immediate vicinity
5. Customs search
6. Stop and frisk
a) Requisites:
i. Introduce urself that u are a police officer
ii. Must have probable cause why ur frisking the person
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

Ppl vs Aruta y Menguin

RA 6235 section 9 Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the
following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of,
prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft," which shall
constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier

WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
1. In flagrante delicto requires:
a) As a police officer, in ur presence, a person committed, actually committing or attempting to commit a crime
b) Inn attempting to commit a crime- Must have probable cause, information is not enough, there must be overt acts
 Ppl vs Aminodin
- alleged carrying marijuana, police arrested and frisk him and found out that there is indeed marijuana. No probable cause,
no valid warrantless arrest. Therefore, no valid warrantless search bec a valid warrantless search follows a valid warrantless
arrest.

2. Hot pursuit - u did not see the offense happened. The offense was just committed. Hot pursuit is continuous.
a) Probable cause
b) Based on personal knowledge

3. Escapee

Entrapment- mind of the accused must be criminal from the beginning. Well prepared, police officers, already plotted
everything and paved the way for the criminal to ask criminal q’s
Instigation- law enforcers were the ones who initiated he criminal design

Warrantless arrest = personal knowledge = overt acts