BASIC PRICIPLES OF POLITICAL LAW

SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in the State by which the state is
governed.

Two kinds of sovereignty:

1. Legal Sovereignty — authority which has the power to issue final commands

2. Political Sovereignty — power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum total of all the influences that
operate upon it

Sovereignty may also be internal or external:

1. Internal Sovereignty — refers to the power of the state to control its domestic or internal affairs

2. External Sovereignty — the power of the State to direct its relations with other states, also known as
independence

Section 1, Article II. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them. Territorial Jurisdiction — authority of State
to have all within its [territorial] bounds to be subject to control and protection. Personal Jurisdiction —
authority of the state over all its nationals, their person, property, and acts, whether within or outside
its territory Extraterritorial Jurisdiction — authority of state over persons, things, and acts outside of its
territorial limits as it affects the people of the state

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Ordains that each of the 3 branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in
matters falling within its constitutionally allocated sphere; each branch cannot invade the domain of
others. Powers of the government are separated to avoid concentration of powers in any one branch
[Gatmaytan].

The government established by the Constitution follows the theory of separation of powers. Separation
of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government and is founded on the belief that, by
establishing equilibrium among the three (3) power holders, harmony will result and power will not be
concentrated and tyranny will be avoided [Bernas].
Any system that is violative of the principle of separation of powers is unconstitutional and void [See
Belgica v. Ochoa on the unconstitutionality of the PDAF]. The Philippine government is divided into three
(3) branches of government, namely: 1. Legislative 2. Executive; and 3. Judiciary

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three government branches has exclusive
cognizance of and is supreme in concerns falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. It
intends to secure action, to forestall over-action, to prevent despotism, and to promote efficiency While
the separation of powers is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it obtains from actual division
in the Constitution (found in Sec. 1 of Arts. VI, VII, and VIII). Each department has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere (see Angara v. Electoral
Commission).

Political Question Doctrine

A question of which a resolution has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in the people, or in
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to a co-equal branch of the government
(separation of powers) cannot be decided upon by the Courts. This is as opposed to a justiciable
question which deals with matters re: the law and its interpretation, not left to the wisdom of the
people. Application A. Belgica v. Ochoa The Pork Barrel System violates the separation of powers
because it is a form of postenactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget. 1.
The system permits legislative encroachment upon the executive prerogative of implementing the law,
by giving individual legislators: (a) The power to determine projects after the General Appropriations Act
(GAA) is passed; and (b) through congressional committees, authority in the areas of fund release and
realignment, the system encroaches on the Executive’s power to implement the law. 2. Furthermore,
identification of a project by a legislator being a mandatory requirement before his PDAF can be tapped
as a source of funds, his act becomes indispensable in the entire budget execution process.

B. Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (2016) In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and
the Executive Order No. 292

(Administrative Code of 1987), to allow the internment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the
public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes, President Duterte
decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness.
There being no taint of grave abuse of discretion, as discussed below, President Duterte’s decision on
that political question is outside the ambit of judicial review. C. Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation v.
Davidoff Et Cia. SA, G.R. No. 197482 (2017) The task of determining probable cause is lodged with the
public prosecutor and ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. Under the doctrine of separation of powers,
courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government. D. OCA v. Reyes, A.M. No. P-08- 2535 (2010) The
legislative power imposing policies through laws is subject to the substantive and constitutional
limitations. It cannot limit the Court’s power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges
and court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the Court’s power to preserve and
maintain the Judiciary’s honor, dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by
imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges
and court employees
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE .

The following are inherent in a State, inseparable from its sovereignty; hence, can be exercised even
without being expressly granted in the Constitution or laws. However, the conditions for their exercise
can be regulated and limited [De Leon].

1. Police Power;

2. Eminent Domain; and 3

. Taxation 1. Police Power Definition It is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to
prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693 (1967)] The police power of the state is
a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the “law of the overruling necessity”
[Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078 (1919)] Police power, while incapable of an exact
definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all
exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant”
[White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846 (2009)]

Scope and Limitations “The state in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal
liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of
restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general [Link], health and prosperity of the state and to
this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are subordinated” [Ortigas and Co.,
Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L- 24670 (1979)]. As police power derives its
existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to be expressed or defined in its
scope. XXX So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State;
what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due process
clause and the equal protection clause. [Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995 (1957)]. Police power has
been characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers, extending as it
does to all the great public needs [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor
of Manila, supra)]. Taxation and Eminent Domain as Implements on Police Power Taxation may be used
as an implement of police power [Lutz v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-7859 (1955)]. Eminent domain may be used
as an implement to attain the police objective. [Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. 78742, (1989)] Specific Coverage 1. Public Health 2. Public Safety 3. Public Morals 4.
General Welfare [Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corporation, G.R. No. L-14785 & L-14923 (1960)]

Who may Exercise Police Power Generally: Legislature Delegated 1. President 2. Administrative Bodies 3.
Law-making Bodies of LGUs Limitations on Delegation of Police Power 1. Express grant by law; 2. Within
the territorial jurisdiction of LGUs; and 3. Must not be contrary to law TEST OF VALID EXERCISE A. Means
Purpose Test 1. Lawful Subject - the interests of the public, generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require such interference and that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the
police power [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]. 2. Lawful Means - the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals [National
Development Company v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 84132- 33 (1990)] B. Reasonability Test The
limit to police power is reasonability. The Court looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it
encroaches on the right of an individual. So long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that
end, it is reasonable [Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, (1968)]. Application The PWD mandatory
discount on the purchase of medicine is supported by a valid objective or purpose as aforementioned. It
has a valid subject considering that the concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional
notion of use by the public, but held synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and
public convenience. As in the case of senior citizens, the discount privilege to which the PWDs are
entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public

to which these citizens belong. The means employed in invoking the active participation of the private
sector, in order to achieve the purpose or objective of the law, is reasonably and directly related. Also,
the means employed to provide a fair, just and quality health care to PWDs are reasonably related to its
accomplishment, and are not oppressive, considering that as a form of reimbursement, the discount
extended to PWDs in the purchase of medicine can be claimed by the establishments as allowable tax
deductions pursuant to Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442 as implemented in Section 4 of DOF Revenue
Regulations No. 1-2009. Otherwise stated, the discount reduces taxable income upon which the tax
liability of the establishments is computed [Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. National
Council on Disability Affairs, G.R. No. 194561, (2016)]. Exercise of Police Power is subject to judicial
inquiry Legislature’s determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or
conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the court [US v. Toribio, G.R. No. L-5060 (1910)].
However, courts cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of the police power, since they cannot
foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare. So it is that Constitutions do not define
the scope or extent of the police power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations thereof.
The most important of these are the due process clause and the equal protection clause [Ichong v.
Hernandez, supra] Example of a Legitimate Exercise of Police Power RA 9257, the Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the
Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to
the purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-prescription
medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al. G.R. No.
166494, (2007)]. 2. Eminent Domain Definition The right of eminent domain is the ultimate right of the
sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but the private property of all citizens within the
territorial sovereignty, to public purpose [Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354 (2015)]. Scope
and Limitations The exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should
underlie the Government’s exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) that it is for a
particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner [Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., G.R. No. 176625 (2010)]. The power of eminent domain is
the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just
compensation. It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be
granted even by the fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the government’s
exercise of this power [Republic v. Tagle, G.R. No. 129079 (1998)]. Who may Exercise Eminent Domain
Generally: Legislature Delegated (through charter): 1. LGUs 2. Other Government entities The repository
of eminent domain powers is the legislature, i.e. exercised through the enactment of laws. But power
may be delegated to LGUs and other government entities (via charter); still, the delegation must be by
law [Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)].
Requisites for the Valid Exercise of Eminent Domain 1. Necessity 2. Private Property 3. Public Use 4.
Taking 5. Just Compensation 6. Due Process 1. Necessity There must be a necessity which must be of
public character [Manapat v. CA, supra]. Difference as to the exercising officer a. If Congress exercises
the power of eminent domain, the question of necessity is a political question. b. If a delegate exercises
such power under a general authority, the question of necessity is a justiciable question. c. If a delegate
exercises such power under a special authority for a special purpose, the question of necessity is a
political question [Manapat v. CA, supra]. 2. Private Property General Rule: All private property capable
of ownership may be expropriated and it may include public utility and services [Republic v. PLDT, G.R.
No. 18841, January 27, 1961]. Exceptions a. Money b. Choses in Action Chose in Action It is a personal
right not reduced into possession such as debts owed by another person; it is the right to recover a debt,
demand, or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of a duty. [Black’s Law
Dictionary]. 3. Public Use Public use includes not only use directly available to the public but also those
which redound to their indirect benefit [Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553- 55 (1983)]

As long as the public has the right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a public
advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient to constitute a public use [Manosca v. CA, G.R. No. 106440
(1995)]. 4. Taking There is taking of property when the following are present [Republic v. Castellvi, G.R.
No. L20620 (1974)]: 1. the expropriator must enter a private property 2. the entrance into private
property must be for more than a momentary period 3. the entry into the property should be under
warrant or color of legal authority 4. the property must be devoted to a public use 5. the utilization of
the property ousts the owner and deprives him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property Not an
instance of taking Imposition of restrictions on the use of property to protect the public health safety or
morals from danger is not taking as there is no dedication to public use [Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742 (1989)]. 5. Just
Compensation Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is
used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" and to convey thereby the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample
[National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation, G.R. No. 223366 (2017)].
Determination of Just Compensation General Rule: Computed at the time of the filing of the complaint
for expropriation (Sec. 4, Rule 67, ROC) Exception: At the time of taking, when taking precedes filing of
the complaint

It is also important to note that inflation will not be considered in determining what the value is
[Nepomuceno v CA, G.R. No. 166246 (2008)]. Determination of Just Compensation is a Judicial Function
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive or legislature may make the
initial determination but when a party claims a violation in the Bill of Rights, no statute, decree, or
executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s mandate [EPZA v.
Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, (1987)] Difference between Eminent Domain and Regulatory Taking 1) Eminent
domain is an inherent power of the State based on the Constitution. Just compensation must be paid. 2)
Regulatory taking is the exercise of the State of its police power. In this case, just compensation need
not be paid. Two stages of Eminent Domain 1. Determination of the authority of the expropriator to
exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise 2. Determination by the court of
the just compensation [Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260 (1989)] 3. Taxation Definition It is
the power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the Government. It is
the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of its
sovereignty, for the support of the government and for all public needs. It is as broad as the purpose for
which it is given. Purpose: 1. To raise revenue 2. Tool for regulation 3. Protection/power to keep alive

Lifeblood theory and Necessity theory Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the
government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing
power derives its source from the very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens
obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to
tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the
general welfare and well-being of the people. [NPC v. Cabanatuan, G.R. No. 149110, (2003)] Tax for
special purpose Treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only; when purpose is fulfilled,
the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI].
Requisites [Sec. 28(1), Art. VI] a. Uniform and Equitable Taxes should be (a) uniform (persons or things
belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate) and (b) equitable (taxes should be
apportioned among the people according to their ability to pay) b. Progressive system of taxation The
rate increases as the tax base increases, with social justice as basis (Taxation here is an instrument for a
more equitable distribution of wealth). c. Delegated tax legislation Congress may delegate law-making
authority when the Constitution itself specifically authorizes it. Scope and Limitation General Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public purpose (2) Might
be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals (3) Tax
should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of
property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with utmost
caution, otherwise, the State’s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed. (4)
Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28(1), Art. VI] Judicial review for unconscionable and unjust
tax amounting to confiscation of property The legislature has discretion to determine the nature, object,
extent, coverage, and situs of taxation. But where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust
as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down; the power to tax
cannot override constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 109289 (1994)] Specific
Limitations a. Uniformity of taxation General Rule: Simply geographical uniformity, meaning it operates
with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found Exception: Rule does not
prohibit classification for purposes of taxation, provided the requisites for valid classification are met
[Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc, G.R. No. L- 23793 (1968)]. b. Tax Exemptions No law granting any
tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress
[Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]. There is no vested right in a tax exemption. Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority [Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No.
168584 (2007)]. Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory: 1. Constitutional exemptions [Sec.
28(3), Art. VI] 2. If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress [Sec.
28 (4), Art. VI]

BILL OF RIGHTS

Privacy and Autonomy The Bill of Rights, in General It is a declaration and enumeration of a person's
fundamental civil and political rights. It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government,
by individuals, or by groups of individuals. The Bill of rights governs the relationship between the
individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual
and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private
sphere inaccessible to any power holder” [People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561 (1991)]. In a democracy, the
preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as
well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual
must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his
person."

The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults
of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn
and derision of those who have no patience with general principles [Philippine Blooming Mills
Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, Co., G.R. No. L-31195 (1973)]. It is self-executing.
XXX It is recognized that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts to effectuate constitutional
provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of property. [Gamboa
v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579 (2011)]

Article III contains the chief protection for human rights but the body of the Constitution guarantees
other rights as well. 1. Civil rights - rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a
state or community (e.g. rights to property, marriage, freedom to contract, equal protection, etc.) 2.
Political rights - rights that pertain to an individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis the management of the
government (e.g. right of suffrage, right to petition government for redress, right to hold public office,
etc.) 3. Social and economic rights – rights which are intended to insure the well-being and economic
security of the individual 4. Rights of the accused – civil rights intended for the protection of a person
accused of any crime

Application to Private Individuals The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals.
The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful
[Yrasuegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081 (2008)]. Constitutional protection applies to government action and
is meant as a restraint against sovereign authority. The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against
private individuals, and governs relations between individuals and the state [People v. Marti, supra]

Private Acts The principle that the Bill of Rights applies only to actions taken by state officials does not
necessarily mean that a private individual cannot violate the liberty of another. Violation of the Bill of
Rights precisely as a constitutional guarantee can be done only by public officials. But almost all these
liberties are also guaranteed by Art. 32 of the Civil Code, thus making private violations actionable even
if the violation does not have a constitutional consequence [BERNAS, the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009].

2. Relation to Human Rights Primacy of human rights (doctrine of hierarchy of rights or doctrine of
preferred freedoms) While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of civil
institutions [Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, Co., supra]
General Purpose The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the vicissitudes
of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them
as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or
free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a
vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)]

SPECIFIC PURPOSES 1. To preserve democratic ideals 2. To safeguard fundamental rights 3. To promote

Section 1, Article III. – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Sec. 1, Art. XIII. – The Congress
shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the
people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably

diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. Due process is a guaranty against any
arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether committed by the legislature, the executive or the
judiciary. [Cruz, p. 205] The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted
in pursuance of the police power. xxx The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power
legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist
between purposes and means. [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]. Definition Due process furnishes a standard
to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in
each appropriate case, be valid. The standard is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience
to the dictates of justice. It has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and
Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila, supra]

Scope Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race, color or
nationality. Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is
concerned [Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 15574 (1919)]. The guarantee extends to aliens and
includes the means of livelihood [Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, G.R. No. L-29646 (1978)]. 1. Concept of Right to
Life, Liberty and Property Right to Life It includes the right of an individual to his body in its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable [MALCOLM]. It is understood to include quality of life – which is entitlement to a life lived with
assurance that the government he established and consented to will protect the security of person
means: freedom from fear; guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity, and guarantee of protection
of one‘s rights by the government [Secretary of National Defense v Manalo, G.R. No. 180906 (2008)].
Right to Liberty Liberty - the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or
servitude. It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways. [Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-14078 (1919)] "Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not
license; it is "liberty regulated by law." Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the
individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general wellbeing. It
cannot be taken away except by due process of law. Civil Liberty - that measure of freedom which may
be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others.
[Id.]

The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but
is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his
Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. [Id.] Chief elements of
the guaranty: Right to contract Right to choose one’s employment Right to labor Right to locomotion
[Id.] Right to Property Property - anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to secure, use
and dispose of them [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 US 197 (1923)]. Property and property rights can be lost
through prescription. [Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil. Blooming Mills Co. Inc.,
supra] A mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or
purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to
validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. [Id.]

a. Substantive Substantive due process inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for
depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No.
122846 (2009)]. Substantive due process "requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by
which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just." It requires the intrinsic validity of the law
in interfering with life, liberty, and property and a guarantee against exercise of arbitrary power. [Rama
v. Moises, G.R. 197146, (2016)]. Requisites of substantive due process Due process of law simply means
that: That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
department of the Government; That this law shall be reasonable in its operation; That it shall be
enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; That it shall be applicable alike to
all the citizens of the state or to all of a class." [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, supra] Expanded
test of substantive due process 1. Is there public interest, public purpose, public welfare involved? 2. Is
the act reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the legislature‘s purpose? 3. Is it not
unreasonable, arbitrary, or oppressive? 4. Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with the
manner involved or has there been capricious use of legislative power? 5. Can the aims conceived be
achieved by the means used, or is it not merely and unjustified interference? [Ichong v. Hernandez,
supra] Substantive due process requires that the means employed in depriving persons of property must
not be unduly oppressive. [SJS v. Atienza Jr., G.R. No. 156052 (2007)

Lawful subject i.e. the interests of the public in general (as distinguished from those of a particular class)
require the intervention of the State, and Lawful means i.e. means employed are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals. Due process must be a
guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when the power is exercised according to proper
forms and procedures. [BERNAS] Publication of laws Before a person may be bound by law, he must be
officially and specifically informed of its contents. For the publication requirement, “laws” refer to all
statutes, including those of local application and private laws. This does not cover internal regulations
issued by administrative agencies, which are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must
be full, or there is none at all [Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 (1986)]. b. Procedural Procedural due
process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life,
liberty, or property. It concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when
it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, supra]
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial
and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner by which a law is
enforced. [BERNAS] General Rule: The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing.
Exceptions: However, notice and hearing are not required in every case, for there are an admitted
number of exceptions in view of the nature of the property involved or the urgency

of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger. The conclusive presumption
bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or
there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom.
Instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of these requisites, (e.g. summary
abatement of a nuisance per se like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight) because of
the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials,
contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The
passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his
return to the country he has fled Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the
public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. [Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457. March 20,
1987] i. Due Process in Judicial Proceedings Requisites of due process in civil proceedings: [Banco
Español v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390 (1918)] 1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter before it 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or over property which is the subject of the proceeding Service of summons is
not only required to give the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but also to afford the
latter the opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him. Thus, compliance with the rules
regarding the service of summons

is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction [Sarmiento v. Raon, G.R. No. 131482 (2002)]. 3. The
defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and 4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing. 5. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. [Sec.
14, Art. VIII] Note: The SC reiterated that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law [Alba v. Nitorreda, G.R. No. 120223 (1996)]. Note: The allowance or denial of
motions for extension rests principally on the sound discretion of the court to which it is addressed, but
such discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently, with a view to substantial justice. Poverty is
recognized as a sufficient ground for extending the existing period for filing. The right to appeal is part of
due process of law [Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. L-41680 (1977)]. In Criminal Proceedings Sec. 14, Art. III. (1) No
person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. xxx Art. III, Sec. 14[1]
refers to procedural due process which refers to a law which hears before it condemns— proceeds upon
inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. Requisites of criminal due process [Sec. 14(2), Art. III,
1987 Constitution] Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction; Accused is proceeded against
under the orderly process of law; Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard
Judgment rendered is within the authority of a constitutional law [Mejia v. Pamaran, G.R. No. L- 56741-
42 (1988)]. ii. Due Process in Administrative Proceedings Seven Cardinal Rights in Administrative
Proceedings [Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. 46496 (1940)]: The right to a hearing which includes the right of
the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not
only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to
establish the rights which he asserts, but the tribunal MUST consider the evidence presented. The
decision of the tribunal should be supported by something. Must be based on evidence. A decision with
absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity xxx. The evidence supporting the finding or conclusion must
be substantial (such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. This does not include uncorroborated hearsay or rumors. The decision must be rendered on
the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties can the
latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. The body must act on its or
his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision Render its decision in such a manner that the parties to
the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. Note:
The constitutional requirement on the judgment being in writing and promulgated is NOT APPLICABLE to
administrative decisions. Ang Tibay is used as basis for stating that quasi-judicial tribunals should render
its decision in such a manner that parties to the proceeding know the various issues involved and
reasons for the decision. [Serrano v. PSC, G.R. No. 24165, Aug. 30, 1968] QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence. More than a mere scintilla of evidence. Such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ESSENCE OF DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS: Opportunity to be heard. An actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due
process as long as the party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. [Lumiqued
v. Estrada, G.R. No. 154243 (1997)] The requirements for due process in administrative proceedings
depend on whether it is rendered by the tribunal in its quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative capacity. As a
general rule, notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the
administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative functions; but where
a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasijudicial matter, and its acts are particular and
immediate rather than general and prospective, the person whose rights or property may be affected by
the action is entitled to notice and hearing. [Philippine Communications Satellite v. Alcuaz, G.R. No.
84818, (1989)] Administrative issuances which implement or enforce existing laws pursuant to a valid
delegation of legislative power must be published to be effective. [Republic v. Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No.
173918, (2008

Twin requirements which constitute the essential elements of due process: [Perez v. Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company, G.R. No. 152048, (2009)] Notice The employer must furnish the
employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: The first is to
apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and The
second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Hearing Due process of law
simply means giving opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. This “procedural due
process” requirement is not constitutional but merely statutory, hence, a violation of such requirement
does not render the dismissal void. the employer must be sanctioned for non-compliance with the
requirements of, or for failure to observe, due process [Serrano v. NLRC, G.R. No. 117040. January 27,
2000] RATIONALE: 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. 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. The employer cannot really be expected to be entirely an impartial judge of
his own cause

The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; They
shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; They
shall be informed of the evidence against them; They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf; The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated
by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. [Non v. Dames, G.R. No. 89317 (1990)] [The]
proceedings may be summary. [C]rossexamination is not an essential part of the investigation or
hearing. The required proof in a student disciplinary action is substantial evidence. What is crucial is that
official action must meet minimum standards of fairness to the individual, which generally encompass
the right of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. [Id.

Void for Vagueness Doctrine An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. A
statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application

A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that
persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute When is a
statute vague? A vague statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects [Souther

TEST: Facial invalidity Whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed
conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. [Estrada v Sandiganbayan, G.R.
148560, (2001)] Overbreadth Doctrine The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose
may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms" [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, supra]. Facial challenge is allowed
because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech.

The void for vagueness doctrine is subject to the same principles governing overbreadth doctrine. For
one, it is also an analytical tool for a “facial” challenge of statutes in free speech cases. Like overbreadth,
it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications.
Applicability to penal statutes General rule: Void for vagueness and overbreadth are inapplicable to
penal statutes. Rationale: Statutes have a general in terrorem effect, which is to discourage citizens from
committing the prohibited acts. Exception: The statute is challenged as applied; or The statute involves
free speech Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in order to counter the “chilling effect” of the
same. [Disini v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 (2014), on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law].
As-Applied vs Facial Challenges Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers only extant
facts affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws
and defects, not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or activities [Disini v. Sec. of Justice, supra]. An accused is denied the right to be
informed of the charge against him and to due process where the statute itself is couched in such
indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts/omissions are punished [People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143 (1988)].

[This doctrine] can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e.,
that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining
whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite
warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that the vagueness doctrine merely
requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2001)].

.EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS 1. Concept All persons or things similarly situated must be similarly
treated both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should
not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others
[Ichong v. Hernandez, supra]. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of
the laws on all persons or things without distinction. What the clause requires is equality among equals
as determined according to a valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or
things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars
[The Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, (1993)]. Scope Natural and juridical
persons (the equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as their property is
concerned.) a. A corporation as an artificial person is protected under the Bill of Rights against denial of
due process, and it enjoys the equal protection of the law [Smith, Bell and Co., v. Natividad, supra]. b. A
corporation is also protected against unreasonable searches and seizures [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No.
L-19550 (1967)]. c. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected against
unlawful discrimination [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L- 32409 (1971)]. 2. Requisites for Valid
Classification 1. It must rest on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; 2. It must be
germane to the purpose of the law; 3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only 4. It must apply
equally to all members of the same class Presumption of Validity All classifications made by law are
generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by petitioner [Lacson v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 128096 (1999)]. Rule on Aliens General Rule: A legislative act may not validly classify the
citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race or parentage. Exceptions a. In times of great and
imminent danger, such as a threatened invasion or war, such a classification is permitted by the
Constitution when the facts so warrant (e.g. discriminatory legislation against Japanese citizens during
WWII). b. The political rights of aliens do not enjoy the same protection as that of citizens. c. Statutes
may validly limit to citizens exclusively the enjoyment of rights or privileges connected with the public
domain, the public works, or the natural resources of the State. The rights and interests of the state in
these things are not simply political but also proprietary in nature; and so the citizens may lawfully be. 3.
Levels of Scrutiny Serrano v. Gallant Maritime [G.R. No. 167614 (2009)] introduced a modification in
equal protection jurisprudence by using the threelevel review used in due process cases. In effect, the
level of review when it comes to equal protection challenges may follow the following format: a.
Rational Basis Test The classification should bear a reasonable relation to the government’s purpose or
legitimate state interest. Note: This test is important when there is no plausible difference between the
disadvantaged class and those not disadvantaged, and when the government attaches a morally
irrelevant and negative significance to a difference between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. b.
Intermediate Scrutiny Test The Court accepts the articulated purpose of the legislation, but it closely
scrutinizes the relationship between the classification and the purpose based on a spectrum of
standards, by gauging the extent to which constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the affected
individual interest. Government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state
interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. Applicable to
certain sensitive but not suspect classes; certain important but not fundamental interest. c. Strict
Scrutiny Test Example: In Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, the challenged proviso operates on
the basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic
class and status, with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower
grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that are competitive with the
industry, while the poorer, low-salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL. The
implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank-and-file employees are paid the strictly regimented rates of
the SSL while employees higher in rank — possessing higher and better education and opportunities for
career advancement — are given higher compensation packages to entice them to stay. Considering
that majority, if not all, the rankand-file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life are
less and limited, especially in terms of job marketability, it is they — and not the officers — who have
the real economic and financial need for the adjustment. This is in accord with the policy of the
Constitution "to free the people from poverty, provide adequate social services, extend to them a
decent standard of living, and improve the quality of life for all." Any act of Congress that runs counter
to this constitutional desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before it can pass muster
[Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208 (2004)]. In upholding the constitutionality
of an ordinance imposing curfew upon minors in Quezon City, the Supreme Court resorted to the strict
scrutiny test and ruled that under our legal system's own recognition of a minor's inherent lack of full
rational capacity, and balancing the same against the State's compelling interest to promote juvenile
safety and prevent juvenile crime, it finds that the curfew imposed is reasonably justified with its
narrowly drawn exceptions and hence, not constitutionally infirm [SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No.
225442 (2017)]. Suspect classes A classification that violates a fundamental right, or prejudices a person
accorded special protection by the Constitution [Serrano v.

Gallant, supra]. May therefore include a classification based on income. This test is usually applied to
cases involving classifications based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of the right to
vote, migration, access to courts, and other rights recognized as fundamental. See Table at page 12 for
comparison between levels of scrutiny Examples of Valid Classification Filipino Female Domestics
Working Abroad They are a class by themselves because of the special risks to which their class was
exposed [Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958 (1988)]. Land-Based v. Sea-
Based Filipino Overseas Workers There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, danger to life and
limb, and accessibility to social, civil and spiritual activities [Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v.
POEA, G.R. No. 114714 (1995)]. Office of the Ombudsman Allowing the Ombudsman to start an
investigation based on an anonymous letter does not violate the equal protection clause. The Office of
the Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of government because
those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can
quash, delay or dismiss investigations against them. [Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367 (1995)]

D. RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Sec. 2, Art III. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. To whom is it directed
Against the State; the right cannot be invoked against a private individual. [The] protection against
unlawful searches and seizures…applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that
it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a
limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the
Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the
possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly served [People v. Marti, supra]
Who may invoke The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right,
invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed. It protects all persons, including aliens [Qua
Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L10280 (1963)]

A corporation is entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and
seizures. A corporation is, after all, an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a
distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities
appropriate to such body. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409 (1971)]. 1. Concept of Privacy Zones
of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is
impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The Constitution
does not have a specific provision protecting the right to privacy. It is a penumbral right formed from the
shadows created by several constitutional provisions. That is to say, the right to privacy is located within
the zones created by various provisions of the Constitution and various statutes which protect aspects of
privacy. [Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)] 2. Concept of a Search The constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been
infringed or threatened to be infringed [Valmonte v. General De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)]. What
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial
question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved [Id]. Types of Warrants 1. A
Search Warrant is 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 [Sec.

1, Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Court] Purpose: to gain evidence to convict 2. A
Warrant of Arrest is a written order issued and signed by a magistrate (judge in our jurisdiction) directed
to a peace officer or some other person specially named, commanding him to arrest the body of a
person named in it, who is accused of an offense [Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20 South 103] Purpose: to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused 3. Requisites of a Valid Warrant a. Existence of
Probable Cause b. Probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge c. After personal
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce d. On the
basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to e. There must be particularity in the
description of the places to searched and the persons or things to be seized f. The warrant must refer to
one specific offense (Requisite added by jurisprudence) a. Existence of Probable Cause Probable Cause
for Search Warrant: Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed AND the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched [Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 (1984)].
Probable Cause for Warrant of Arrest: Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof [Allado v.
Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 (1994)]

Probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge The judge must make an exhaustive and
probing examination of witnesses and the applicant, and not merely routine or pro forma examination
[Nala v. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087 (2003)]. The determination of probable cause calls for an exercise
of judgment after a judicial appraisal of the facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the
absence of any rule to the contrary. How it is done: In the form of searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath. [Sec. 6, Rule 126, ROC] Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are
thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. The examining magistrate must not simply
rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the
application. [Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410 (1984)] Such written deposition is necessary in order that
the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to
hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false [Mata v.
Bayona, G.R. No. 50720 (1984)]. c. After personal examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce Oath Any form of attestation that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully; an outward pledge given by the person taking it
that his attestation or promise

is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God Requisites • Must refer to facts • Such
facts are of personal knowledge of the petitioner or applicant or witnesses. Not hearsay. Test of
sufficiency of an oath Whether or not it was drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged against
the affiant and he be held liable for damages. On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they
are testifying to. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., supra] The purpose of having personal knowledge by the
complainant and witnesses and the sufficiency of the warrant is to convince the magistrate seeking the
issuance of the warrant that there is probable cause. Personal knowledge is not the same as personal
belief [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., supra]. The testimony must be based on the own personal knowledge of the
complainant and of the witnesses, not mere hearsay or information from a “reliable source” [Alvarez v.
CFI, G.R. No. L-45358 (1937)]. d. There must be particularity in the description of the places to searched
and the persons or things to be seized General Rule: The warrant must indicate the particular place to
be searched and person or thing to be seized. Exception If the nature of the goods to be seized cannot
be particularly determined: ● the nature of the thing is general in description ● the thing is not required
of a very technical description [Alvarez v. CFI, supra]

Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: ● readily identify
the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; ● leave said peace
officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches
and seizures [People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546- 47 (2003)]. The search warrant issued to search
petitioner’s compound for unlicensed firearms was held invalid for failing to describe the place with
particularity, considering that the compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses,
one airstrip etc. spread out over 155 hectares [PICOP v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 122092 (1999)]. The
description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. Its nature will vary
according to whether the identity of the property is a matter of concern. The description is required to
be specific only insofar as the circumstances will allow [Kho v. Judge Makalintal, G.R. Nos. 94902-06
(1999)]. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the:
Description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v. Rubio, G.R. No. L-
35500 (1932)]; or Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer
may be guided in making the search and seizure; or Things described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, supra].
Description of Persons An error in the name of the person in the search warrant does not invalidate the
warrant, as long as it contains a description personae [including additional descriptions] that will enable
the officer to identify the accused without difficulty [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., supra]. Search warrant is valid
despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be searched. The