 Bill of Rights - it is a list of rights. Citizens have rights and they are listed.

They have lumped

together. And they are called the list of rights or Bill of Rights. It is a list of the most important
Rights of citizens.
 And what for what purpose? To Protect these rights against infringement by this state. And we
have learned that the idea of. Government is brought about by two social values - Power and
freedom.
 The Bill of Rights is tailor made as a protection of the citizen, as against the state, it will always
be against this state. This is to emphasize the fact that the Bill of Rights is there to protect he
citizen, as against the enormous power of the state. It is a limitation on the intrusions of
government.
 The Bill of Rights establishes the relationship of the individual to the state and defines the rights
of the individual by limiting the lawful powers of the state.
 Governance therefore becomes the delicate art of balancing the power of government, power
of government and the freedom of the governed. It is the story of Governmental power and the
constitutional limits.
 And so therefore. You are brought to a question. That governance is the delicate art of balancing
the. Power of government. And the freedom of the governed.
 The first coded Bill of Rights. Is that of England as far back? As 1689. Although it already had its
Magna Carta as early as 1215. The United States had its Bill of Rights only in 1776. That started
the magnacarta. Started laws on the rights of citizens. They were the ones who first had codes.
Postal provisions and law chilapa yuang. Masasabi in Constitution in one. In one book. In one
code. The bus have been in the England. Has an unwritten constitution and the word unwritten
means there is that England does not have one unitary. Conval constitution, the Constitution,
liberal, unlike the United States and the Philippines. Magna Carta constitution. Well, one
explanation for this. Is that the?

 The restrictions found in the Bill of Rights are directed against the state. They do not govern
relations between private persons. However, almost all the protection against the state found in
the Bill of Rights have been made applicable, as civil law relations between private persons
through Article 32 of the Civil Code. Generally it states there that this protection shall be given
to citizens as against the acts harmful acts of another citizen.
 As a general rule, the Bill of Rights applies to Filipino citizens and aliens alike. But this is not the
hard and fast rule because there is one exception to this one - the exception is in Section 7 with
respect to the right of a citizen to access records of the government. It cannot be given to an
alien, that is the a right that belongs only to citizens.
 There we said that the totality of governmental powers contained in three great powers, the
power of the police power. Power of eminent domain and the power of taxation. That the
Constitution can only define and delimit its powers and allocate the exercise among various
government agencies. With respect to police power, it has been characterized as the most
essential, insistent and the least limited bottle of powers, extending as it does to all government
needs.

 (Andonis Myung and Servalan) Is the exercise of police power subject to judicial inquiry?
o Yes, the exercise of police power in so far as it affects the life, liberty or property of any
person is subject to judicial inquiry.
 What is the principal yardstick against which the exercise of the police power may be measured?
How may it be measured? What is the guideline of the courts?
o This is initiated in the case of US versus Toribio.
  It held that police power must be exercised within the limits set by the
Constitution, in the words of the leading case of US versus Toribio, the
legislative determination of what's proper exercise of police power is not final.
Or conclusion, but is subjected to the supervision of the courts. And the
principal yardstick. Against which such exercise are measured are the due
process clause and the Equal protection clause.

 The extent of the right to life that is protected by the Constitution

o It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security against physical harm,
it is also the right a good life.
 Extent of the right to liberty
o Not simply freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to
contract, to engage in any common occupation, to acquire useful knowledge,
to marry, establish a home, to bring up children, and to worship God
according to the dictates of one’s conscience.
 Property
o Includes all kinds of property found in the Civil Code.

 Is there a hierarchy of the rights protected by the Constitution?

o Jurisprudence says that yes, there is. In the 1971 convention Constitutional Convention
deliberations, it clearly recognized that the social character of private property definitely
placed property in a position inferior to life or liberty.

o In the case of Arroyo versus de Lima

 the Supreme Court, in granting the temporary restraining order in favor of
petitioner Arroyo, because she was being barred from leaving the Philippines in
order to have to submit to medical attention. De Lima, as Secretary of Justice
then fired Her. And the Supreme Court said, in granting the temporary
restraining order asserted to the right to life as the most important right
protected by the Constitution.
o The case of Philippine Blooming Mills employees organizations versus Philippine bluing
Mills Company Incorporated.
 It speaks of the primary of human rights over property rights.

SECTION 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without. Due process of law. Nor
shall. Any person will be denied the equal protection of the law

There are 2 parts therefore, of Section 1. We call the due process of law clause. The due process
of law clause provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property that you
produce. And then we have the second part, the equal protection of the laws clause.
Peoples rights contain mandates against the state.

To give the citizen this right to protect himself, that is why the Bill of Rights contain mandates
against this state. It is always against this state. To protect its citizens. The Bill of Rights does not
govern relations between private persons as a general rule.

In the Bill of Rights are directed against the state. They do not govern relation between private
persons. However, almost all the protection against the state found in the Bill of Rights have
 been made applicable as civil law. To relations between private persons through Article 32 of
the Civil Code, take note.
As a general rule, the Bill of Rights applies to Filipino citizens and aliens alike. Exception, as we
have said, is Section 7 applies only to Filipino citizens. The totality of governmental power is
contained in three great powers. We keep on harping on that so that you won't forget. These
are. Police power. The power of eminent domain. And the power of taxation. These powers are
not granted by the Constitution. They are inherent powers of government without which no
government can exist. A constitution can only define and delimit these powers. And allocate the
exercise among various government agencies.

Which power has been characterized as the most essential? And the least limital of powers, extending as
it does to all. Government needs. The constitutional provision that deals with the police power would
be. Section 1. But police power? Is defined as. That in the event and plenary power of the state. Which
enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful. To comfort safety and welfare of society. Try to understand and if
possible. Put that in mind, this is this definition is found in the case of Ermita hotel and hotel operators
versus versus the mayor of Manila. That is cited in fairness.
Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the public to self
protection. And police power may be delegated to local governments. This is contained in the. In the
case of Legaspi versus city of Cebu. A 2013 case. Which power is exercised by the national government
through the Legislative Department? It may also be delegated within limits to local governments.

Then we have the test of a valid ordinance. As held. The case of. Fernando versus Scholasticus?
Fernando versus Chinese scolastica. Police power is the plenary. Power vested in the legislature to make
statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and
general welfare of the people. The state through. The legislature has delegated the exercise of police
power to local government units as agencies of this state. This delegation of police power is embodied in
section 16 of the local government code of 1991. Known as the General Welfare Clause, which has two
branches, the first, known as the general legislative power, authorizes the municipal council to enact
ordinances and make regulations not repugnant to law. As may be necessary to carry into the faculties,
charge the powers and duties conferred upon the municipal council. And the second, known as the
police power, authorizes the municipality to act ordinances as may be necessary and proper for the
health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace, could order, comfort and convenience of the municipality
at its. Us and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property.
The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions, including the seat of
Manila, has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of
the local government unit to an act and pass. According to the procedure prescribed by law. It must also
conform to the following substantive requirements.
1. Does not contravene the Constitution for any statute.
2. must that be unfair or oppressive.
3. must not be partial or discriminatory.
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate trade
5. must be general and consistent with public policy
6. must not be unreasonable.
its power has been used to justify such safety measures as in building regulations, regulations and the
carrying of deadly weapons, gasoline stations and movie housing. For its power has been used to justify
public health measures, as in compulsory connection to sewerage system and regulation of cattle
imports. In the field of public morals, public power police power has been used as basis for judicial
approval of legislation punishing vagrancy, prohibiting gambling regulation, the operation of dance halls
motels and hotels. Take note that we said it is regulating the operation of dance halls, gambling, etc. It
cannot go beyond. It cannot go beyond mere regulation into prohibition.

De la Cruz versus jugde paraz. When it was held that were a municipality refuge. To give any permit for
nightclubs and any license for professional dancers. The court declared the ordinance and constitutional
as going beyond deregulation in two prohibition of the professional calling, which properly regulated,
can be legitimate. Local governments also cannot contravene. Of Congress not to prohibit gambling. But
tasks versus price properties. While gambling may be prohibited when it is, but while gambling may be
prohibited when it is allowed, the courts will not pass judgement on the choice of Congress. The
morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is. Generally inimical
to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically prescribing or prohibiting
or penalizing gambling, or for that matter, even mentioning it at all. Nor may local governments, in spite
of local autonomy, contravene the judgment of Congress not to prohibit gambling. With power also has
been used to justify measures for the general welfare, such as those regulating this total of cannibals,
regulating nuisances, laying down the rules for the deportation of aliens, anti anti graft laws. The rights
protected under the due process. Clause of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the right to life.
Right to liberty and right to property. Those are the rights that are protected under the due process
clause of the Constitution.

 The exercise of police power is subject to judicial inquiry. The exercise of police power, insofar
as it affects the life, liberty, or property of any person, is subject to judicial inquiry.
 In US versus Toribio- the principal yardstick against which the exercise of police power may be
measured. This power must be exercised within the limits set by the constitution. In other
words, the legislative determination of what is proper exercise of its power is not final or
conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts. And the principal yardsticks yardstick
against which such exercise. As we measured as the due process plus and the equal protection
clause. They are the measure of what can be done and what cannot be done. The reach of the
due process and equal protection clauses starts all persons with their citizens or aliens, natural
or corporate.
 The extent of the right to life that is protected. By the constitution. The constitutional protection
of the right to life is not just a protection of the right to be alive. Or to the security of 1's, lean
against physical harm, the right to life is also the right to a good life. The right to liberty is not
simply freedom from bugging the restraint. The right liberty is protected by the due process
clause is not simply freedom from bodily restraint. Protected liberty includes not merely
freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, stablish a home, and bring
up children, and to worship God.
 According to the dictate of consent. The extent of the right to property that is protected by the
Constitution includes all kinds of property found in the Civil Code. It has been deemed to
include vested rights such as a perfected mining plane or a perfected homestead or final
judgement
 In the exercise of. Police power. Yes, the government may exercise police power, especially if it
Brings out the general welfare clause. That the government will say we have the right to
perform this act to prohibit this. It is for the general welfare of the people. But that is not that is
not without limit. It is limited and can be limited only by the due process clause and the Equal
protection clause, the language of the case in US versus Toribio is the principal yardstick.
Against which the exercise of police power may be measured.
 Although police power seems to be the most powerful of the inherent powers Of the state. It is
not without limit. It can be limited.
 Is there a hierarchy of rights? Protected by the Constitution. Yes there is. Deliberations in the
1971 Constitutional Convention. Clearly recognized that the social character of private property
definitely placed property in a position inferior. To life or propensity?
 In Arroyo versus de Lima - The Supreme Court, in granting the temporary restraining order in
favor of petitioner. Adverted to the right to life as the most important rights protected by the
Constitution. So is there a hierarchy of rights yet and annual number one, it is right to life.
Second is right to liberty, and 3rd and last would be the right to property.
 Primacy of human rights over property rights demonstrated in the case of Philippine blooming
mills vs employees organization in the Philippines. The primacy of human rights over property
rights is recognized. The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by
the fact that 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 modeling lumison. Law
concerning property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human
rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of ingrained and immediate danger,
of a substantial evil which the state has the right to prevent.
 Two aspects of due process of law, the procedural and the substantive.
1. Substantive due process - Asks whether the government has an adequate reason for
taking away a person's life, liberty or property. In other words, substantive due
process looks to whether there is sufficient justification for the government's action.
It is a prohibition of arbitrary laws, because if all that due process clause required
were proper procedure, then life, liberty or property could be destroyed arbitrarily
provided proper formalities are observed.
2. Procedural requirement - it relates chiefly to the mode of procedures that the
government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property class
Procedural due process issues are concerned with the kind of notice and what form
of heaving the government must provide when it takes a particular. Indeed,
procedural due process is a guarantee of procedural payment.
 Due process is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
 In American history, due process was understood to relate swiftly to demote the procedure
which government agencies must follow, it was understood as a guarantee of procedural
fairness. As defined by Mr. Daniel Webster and his arguments before the Supreme Court of the
United States. In the famous Dark Mouth College case
 Different sets of requirements for procedural due process - In judicial proceedings, in
administrative proceedings and even in student discipline cases. There are different
requirements. In judicial proceedings, administrative proceeding and also different in student
discipline thesis. Because what is due process of law depends on circumstances, it varies with
the subject matter and the necessities of the situation – answer to the question of Why is it that
there is a one set per procedural due process in judicial proceedings.
 The requirements of procedural due process and judicial proceedings in BankoCentral Filipino
vs. palanka. The requirements of due process are:
1. There must be a court or tribunal closed with the judicial power to either determine
the. Matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant. For over
the. Property which is subject of the proceedings
 3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon local hearing.
 And when you come to the procedural due process of law in administrative proceedings, there is
another. Different from that of judicial proceedings and these are the right to a hearing which
includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support of all. The Tribunal must
consider the evidence presented. The decision must have something to support him. The
evidence must be substantial. The decision must be based on evidence presented at the hearing.
The tribunal or body or any of the judges must act upon on its own independent consideration
of the law and facts of the controversy. 7 The board or body should render its decision in such a
manner that the party store proceedings can know the various issues involved. And yet, in
student discipline cases, there is another set of procedural due process. This came out from
Guzman versus National University. And likewise in. The case of. Magtibay versus Garcia, also in
Ateneo versus Court of Appeals. They are. The students must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of the accusations against them. Second, 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.
And the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated
by the school authorities to have to hear and decide the case. When a student commits a
serious bits of. Discipline or things to maintain the weapon required. Academic standards of his
school. The student forfeits his rights. And the courts are not at liberty to reverse the decision of
the university authorities in this matter. I had my share of having a case of my fraternity
brothers in the Up Vanguard fraternity in UP in the 19. Late 70s. To super and ramble on.
Fraternity brother. Gramble lunch apple. I think. And another case would be Sigma row.
Fraternity of one point shared relay.

 What is the heart? What is considered the more important requirement of procedural due
process? For what we call the heart of due process, whether in judicial or administrative
proceedings - the heart of procedural due process is the need for notice and an opportunity to
be heard. There must be notice to the, to the parties, and they must be given the opportunity to
be heard in the proceeding. The due process clause must be understood to guarantee that these
forms of procedure, but also the very essence of life, liberty or property. It must be interpreted
both as a procedural and as a substantive guarantee. Due process must be a guarantee against
the exercise of arbitrary power given when the power is exercised according to proper
procedure. Although it was frequently invoked. As a protest against arbitrariness in legislation.
Substantive due process was rarely invoked with success. The Supreme Court gave generous
latitude to legislation designed to promote public health, public safety or public welfare. The
heart of substantive due process is the requirement of resoluteness. Or absence of the exercise
of arbitrary power.
 The heart of substantive due process is the requirement of reasonableness or absence of
exercise or of arbitrary power. And we just said. At the heart of due process procedure due
process. As did for notice and an opportunity to be heard. In US versus Toribio. A statute.
Regulating the slaughter of large cattle. Take note that this case was in 1910. A measure
designed to preserve work animals needed for agriculture was challenged as unlawful
deprivation of property. The Supreme Court sustained this statute and prohibited this notion of
animals or work animals. As it held that the state may interfere whenever the public interest
demands. A large discretion is necessarily vested in the legislature to determine not only what
the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such
interests. This prohibition for the slaughter of large cattle. Especially coverable. Was maintained
 until only recently. It went into the 1910 legislation even in the 1980s, there was still a
prohibition. For the slaughter of work animals.
 Inott versus intermediate appellate court - you must be able to see the difference between the
US versus Torribia case and the inner versus intermediate appellate court case. In the inner, an
executive order was issued by Ferdinand Marcos the senior. Amending executive order 6, this is
the prohibiting the slaughter of large cattle that is mentioned or the subject matter of the US
versus Toribio case. Prohibiting the transportation of carabao or Cara beef from 1 province to
another. And then. A provision says that any carabao or carabeef so transported shall be
confiscated. And the Supreme Court said the amendment is not valid. The amendment to the
prohibition of slaughter is not valid. Outright confiscation is not reasonably related. To the
purpose, it is unduly oppressive.
 DIFFERENCE IN US VERSUS TORIBIO - It prohibits the transportation from 1 province to another
of large cattle. Tapanuli it is confiscated. Our power, Leon. It is confiscatory. It is oppressive
 Ruby vs. provincial board of Mindoro.
o A law. Was passed by the Provincial board of Mindoro creating reservations for the
Mangyan tribes. And prescribing penalties for Mangyan non conformists. This was
challenged as deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The Supreme Court held
that the law was justified. For the demands of general welfare and public interest. This is
a case in 1919. OK, then jumping manga America. Consider Filipinos to be monkeys that
lives on top of trees. So the case was, the Supreme Court said the law was justified. This
is actually.
 Villavicencio versus Lukban
o Not authorized by any law order or regulation, the mayor and chief of Police of Manila
herded together the prostitutes of Manila and shipped them to Davao. The Supreme Court
granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the return of the deportees.
 People vs. Farg/Fajardo
o where a building permit was denied to an owner of a piece of land on the ground that the
proposed construction would block the view from the highway towards the Plaza. The court
said the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive in that it operates to permanently
deprive appellants of the right to use their own property. It oversteps the bounds of police
power and amounts to a taking of property without just compensation.

Principle of presumed constitutionality or validity of statutes - Absent any against it or against the
ordinance, the ordinance is valid because it is presumed to be constitutional or valid. T

 Remita Makati hotel and motel operators versus city of Manila

o Involve a city ordinance designed to curb the rampant use of hotels and motels as places of
illicit acid nation. There being no factual foundation presented to rebut the presumption of
constitutionality of the ordinance, the presumption of validity was allowed to prevail. Why
was it allowed to prevail? We just said it because there is no factual foundation presented to
rebut the presumption of constitutionality of the ordinance. Publication and clarity of laws
as requirement of due process
then gender versus together. The central issue is the meaning to be given to the Civil Code requirement
of publication. Article two of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days. Parent the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette. It is. Otherwise provided. You phrased, unless it is
other. Unless it is otherwise provided, is the contentious permission. And the court held that the phrase,
unless it is otherwise provided, refers to need of publication in the Official Gazette. But in the
requirement of 15 days. The 15 days may be lengthened or shortened, but not to. The point of allowing.
No publication at all. The rule requiring publication for the effectivity of laws applies not only to laws
passed by Congress. It's a place like question presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by
the president in the exercise of legislative powers. Whenever the same are validly delegated by the
legislature.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE - As held in the case of people versus Nazario, a law that is utterly big is
defective. Because it fails to give notice of what it commands. They call Wagner. It is defective. Because
you don't know what it is all about. You don't know what it's talking about.

When is a law vague?

o More recent case of Estrada versus Sandiganbayan - A statute or act is vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as its
meaning, and differ as to its appeal. In such an instance, the statute is repugnant to the
Constitution in two aspects.
1. It validates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of what conduct a
void.
2. It leaves law enforcers, unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes an arbitrary vaccine of the government muscle. A criminal statute that
fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated
conduct is forbidden by this statute or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary
and erratic arrests and convictions is void for vagueness.

 The Equal Protection Clause recognizes the power of the state to act on factual differences
between individuals.
 As held in Tolentino versus board of Accountancy, the guarantee of equal protection simply
means that no person or class of person shall be deprived of the same protection of the laws
which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place, and in light as your
confidences. A law that is utterly vague. It's defective because it fails to give notice of what it
commands.

 When a law is vague, equal protection clause recognizes the power of the state to act upon
factual differences between individuals. In which case, if there is factual differences, then the
law cannot be applied evenly to them. It recognizes that inherent in the right to legislate is the
right to classify the problem. Thus, equal protection cases is one in determining the validity of
the classification made by law.

 The Equal Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of equality of the person. The
equality it guarantees is legal equality, or the equality of all persons before the law. The equality
guaranteed, however, does not deny it to the state. The power to recognize and act upon
factual differences between individuals and classes.
 In people versus kayap, It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of
the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification.
 Requirements for a reasonable classification:
1. Must rest on substantial distinction.
 2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only.
4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

 Farenas versus executive secretary.

o The foreigners here are the famous foreigners of Ilocos Norte. It says that elective and
appointive officials are not of the same class. If their Elections Act provides that elected
officials have not deemed resigned upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, this is
not the case for appointed officials.
o Is this not a violation of the Equal protection clause? The provision in the fair Elections
Act, providing that elected officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing of their
certificate of candidacy, was held by the Supreme Court not to be applicable to
appointive officials running for the public office because they are not of the same class.
 Tiu versus Court of Appeals
o The Constitution does not require absolute equality among residents. RA7227 was
challenged. This is the Subic Bay enabling as violative of the equal protection clause
because it granted tax and duty incentives to businesses and residents within the
secured area of the Subic Special Economic zone and denied them to those who lived
within the zone but outside such fence in territory. The court justified the classification,
saying that the Constitution doesn't require absolute equality among residents.
 In the case of International School educators and person being disturbing then was Secretary of
Education. The practice of the International School of giving higher salary to foreign hires than
local hires of equal rank was declared unconstitutional. The court argued that the principle of
equal pay for equal work required that persons who work with substantially equal qualifications,
skill, effort and responsibility under similar conditions should be paid similar salaries, meaning
they are of the same classification.
 Then comes the Smith Bell and company resource that EBITDA alienage as basis of classification.
The issue is whether or not the statute, which required ownership by Filipino or American
citizens in order to obtain a certificate of filing and registry of a vessel for cost wise trade violate
the due process and equal protection clause. Specification with respect to the evil to be
prevented is a practical question dependent upon circumstances. While the apparent purpose of
the legislature is seen to enact an anti Alien Shipping Act, the ultimate purpose is to encourage
Philippine shipbuilding. The court concluded that the law did not belong to that vicious PC of
class.

 Leasing job versus company and company versus director of lands - The Constitution, as a
general rule places the civil rights of aliens in equal footing with those of citizens. Their political
rights, however, do not enjoy the same protection. The same nature as that of the previous case
would be the echeng versus Hernandez, the national retail retail trade nationalization law, RA
1118. The same is true with King versus Evaas Reed. It is contained in Dernas. In Villegas versus
Yu Chung? It was held that a law can offend against equal protection, not only when it classifies,
but also when it fails to classify. The court invalidated a Manila ordinance imposing uniform
license fee on all aliens as a precondition for their accepting employment. The uniform fee was
found unlawful because it fails to consider valid, substantial differences in situation among
individual aliens who are required to pay it,

 The Equal protection clause provision does not merely prohibit the state from institutionalizing
inequality, it commands the state to take positive measures to eradicate inequality. So are there
 provisions in which eradicate inequality. Not just standing by and the institutionalized
inequality. So do we find doctrinal supports? In the constitution. For a more vigorous effort to
achieve a reasonable measure. Of inequality, measure of equality. Other provisions that
immediately encourages equality provisions in the Constitution that. That encourages equality.
Vernas suggests. That the preamble proclaims equality as an ideal. The command to promote
social justice in Article 2, section 10. In all phases of. Further explicated by Article 13. Commands
equality. The Commission and elections is given broad powers in order to implement laws
seeking to equalize political opportunities. Article 3, Section 11 expressly guarantees free access
to the courts and Article 14 commenced the state to make quality education accessible to all

Section 2. The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable search 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 person or
things to be seized.

 The purpose of the provision is to protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and his house
and other positions against the arbitrary intrusions of the state. And provides for conditions
under which a valid intrusion may be made.
 It says first that the right of the people to be secured shall be inviolable. That is the general
statement. The right of the people to be secured in their person in the House papers and effects
against unreasonable search and seizure of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable. And then the second sentence brings to us the requirement of a valid search warrant
or warrant of arrest:
o It shall be issued upon probable only upon probable cause.
o It must be determined personally by the judge - meaning to say the probable cost must
be determined personally by the judge.
o After examination by the judge under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses him to those
o And then in the search warrant or warrant of arrest shall particularly describe the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 Take note that it says unreasonable search and seizure so it’s not absolute. It is only that which
is unreasonable search and seizure.
 What is unreasonable search and seizure?
 a seizure or a search is unreasonable when there is no warrant. When it is not documented,
when it is not approved by the courts, such that there is no search warrant that has been issued,
so it is unreasonable.

The right of a person against unreasonable search and seizure. Is provided in the Constitution. In the Bill
of Rights specifically. So that the right of the citizen. Against unreasonable search. Is guaranteed
individual rights. Guaranteed by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. That's what we thought. The
question comes in. What if there is no constitution? What if there is no? Bill of Rights, because there is
no constitution, then there is no. Bill of Rights. What happened? When during the revolution. When
there was no Constitution or what we call the interregnum (February 26 to March 25). During that
period, she turned her back on the 1973 constitution, she ruled under a revolutionary government.
Similarly issued the freedom so-called Freedom Constitution proclamation #3 on March 25.

What happened during the interregnum? What happened during the time that there was no
constitution. What if there was search made and seizure made? What are the remedies? There was no
constitution

 Republic of the Philippines versus Sandiganbayan. GR 104768

o 1st Question is a Bill of Rights or a constitution necessary in order that a person might
exercise and be protected by his rights, during that interregnum?
nd
o 2 question was the Bill of Rights in general and the right against unreasonable search
and seizure and the exclusion of illegally seized evidence, in particular not availing from
February 25 to March 26 1986, or during what we call the Interregnum?
FACTS
o On March 3, 1986, security forces raided the House of Dimaano in Los Banos. They were
armed with the search warrant, they confiscated even items not included in the
warrant. The Sandiganbayan ruled that there was an illegal search and seizure of the
items confiscated. This being a decision against the government, the government, the
Republic of the Philippines filed a petition in court questioning this.
o In the Supreme Court, there were two opinions written Justice Carpio, who wrote the
majority opinion holds that the Bill of Rights was not operative during the Interregnum
thus, Dimaano cannot invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the
exclusionary rule of evidence as her house was searched and her properties list on
March 3.
ISSUES IN THE MAJORITY:
(1) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International covenant on
civil and political rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained in
effect during the interregnum.
(2) whether the evidence ceased must be excluded.

RULING:
o The Bill of Rights was not operative during the Interregnum. However, the protection
accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Universal Declaration remained in
effect and Demano was protected, nevertheless not by the Bill of Rights, because it was
not availing not by the Constitution, because it was not availing, but by the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
o On the exclusion of evidence, clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when it
seized the items not included in the warrant. They entered the house, they presented
the search warrant, they searched and confiscated items, even items not included in the
search. So insofar as those items not included in the search warrant is inadmissible as
evidence.
o Now, in the separate concurring opinion of Puno, he agrees that the Bill of Rights was
not operational during the interregnum. He said that Dimaano is entitled to be
protected, not by the Bill of Rights, because non availing, not also by the covenant, but
by the fact that it is her natural right. And this unreasonable search and seizures and
exclusionary rule. If the people lost their right to life, liberty and property, Puno is of the
 view that under natural law, Dimaano has right against unreasonable search and seizure
considering the debate against unreasonable search and seizure is a natural right. The
government cannot claim that Dimaano is not entitled to the right for the vision alone,
that there was no constitution granting the right at that time the search was conducted.
This right of demano precedes the Constitution because it is a natural right.
o On the second issue - the exclusionary right of Dimaano on the items list to be excluded
as evidence against Demano, She is protected but it’s no longer based on the Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, or of the Human Declaration of Human Rights, but, based on
the Freedom Constitution because at the time that she asked for the exclusion of those
illegally searched illegally seized evidence, there was already the proclamation #3.

 How a search warrant or warrant of arrest must be made?

 Section 2 likewise provides the the rule, such that it mandates that 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 person or things to be
seized.

 May a private person or entity be held liable for illegal search?

 Under Section 2, article 3, the general rule is it cannot be. The private person
cannot be held liable for illegal search under the Bill of Rights. But, he may be
held liable under section 32 of the Civil Code.

 At what point does an inspection (say in a checkpoint) become a search in the sense of Section
2?
o In the case of Valmonte versus vilia; people versus Kano - The court held in these two
cases that there is yet no cause for the application of the constitutional rule when what
are involved are routine checks consisting of a brief question or two. For as long as the
vehicle is neither search nor its occupants subjected to bulk search and the inspection of
vehicle is limited to a visual search. Set routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of
an individual’s right against unreasonable seizures.
o In the case of people versus Sapla - a text message from an anonymous person is not a
probable cause for a conduct of an intrusive warrantless search.
o If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can
be done only when there is deemed to be a probable cause.

 Explanation made by Aglipay film stars, September 22, 2020.

 Aglipay said that in Sapla, the police allegedly received an anonymous tip that
the person tweeting the accused description would be transporting marijuana
on board a certain jeepney. According to the police, they set up a checkpoint
and flagged down the jeepney. They saw the accused and asked him to open
this bag where they found the contraband and they submitted that this was a
valid warrantless search. There are a few situations where the warrantless.
Search is allowed amongst others, search incident to lawful arrest when the
illegal item is in plain sigh and a search of a moving vehicle.
 The police tried to justify their actions under the last exception. That is search of
a moving vehicle. In resolving the case, the court held that it was not actually a
 search of a moving vehicle. Even if it were, police need probable cause to
conduct an intrusive, warrantless search of a vehicle. And an anonymous tip is
not enough to provide probable cause. The court cited the case of people versus
Comprado.
 In Comprado case, the court stated that for a search to be classified as such, the
target should be the vehicle and not the person in supply it was supply the
target The target should be the vehicle and the vehicle was intentionally used as
a means to transport illegal item. In Comprado, as in Sapla, the target of the
police was a person, not a vehicle of its or its cutting board. The person just
happened to be a passenger.
 In both Comprado and Sapla, the search was not considered to be one of a
moving vehicle. The checkpoint was set up in Sapla to find a specific person, not
a vehicle.

 What are the essential requisites of a valid warrant?

1. It must be issued upon probable cause.
2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
3. Such judges must examine under oath reformation, the complainant and the witnesses.
he may produce.
4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and things or items to
be seized.
 What is probable cause?
 Probable cause is such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a
warrant that is in them sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them
and act in pursuance thereof.

o For the issuance of the warrant of arrest, probable cause is such facts and circumstances
which lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by
person/s to be arrested.
o For the issuance of the search warrant, such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committee and that the
objects in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

 Quantum of evidence needed to establish probable cause?

 The kind of evidence needed to establish probable cause is probability not
absolute or even moral certainty.

 Microsoft versus Mac Corp - It was held that the prosecution did not present, at this stage,
prove beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of reasonably prudent
man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge. After a full-blown trial, probable cause for a search
warrant did not point to a specific offender. Probable cause for a warrant of arrest must point to
a specific offender.
 In Stonehill vs Diokno - The description of the offense simply as violation of the Central bank
laws, tariff and customs law to make it impossible for a finding of the existence of problem.
Stone Hill was accused of his smuggling cigarettes. Our Secretary of Justice, Diokno, Stonehill
was a businessman. There was the Secretary of Justice applied for a search warrant for violation
of the Central Bank law Studies and customs laws. Serving the Supreme Court, it is impossible
 for a finding of an existence of a probable cause. This establishment of the existence of primal
cost presupposes. The court invalidated the search warrants issued in the case and said that the
description of the offense simply as violation of Central Bank close tariff and customs laws made
it impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to find the existence of probable cause..

 Under the 1987 Constitution, to reiterate, only a judge may determine probable cause for the
purpose of issuing a warrant.
 Different form 1973 Constitution, which provides the probable cause may be determined by the
judge or such other persons as may be authorized by law.
 And then the 1935 Constitution probable cause may be determined only by the judge.

 The prosecution determines probable cause for the purpose of filing an information . When a
case is before a fiscal for a preliminary investigation, then the fiscal determines probable cause
for the purpose of filing an information in court – ADMINISTRATIVE/EXECUTIVE
DETERMINATION
 Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or a search warrant after the case has
been filed in court – JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

 Alvarez versus CSI

 Question must the judge personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses? You go back to the case of Judge Sullivan this with Judge Makasar.
What is known as the Luis Bertran case. The court said in satisfying himself of
the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility
of the judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. What is
required is personal determination and not personal examination.

 The rule that searches and seizures must be supported valid warrant is NOT an absolute rule
o What the constitution prohibits is unreasonable searches and seizures. A search and
seizure not supported by a warrant is not necessarily unreasonable.
o When warrantless search and seizure may be allowed:
1. Search incidental to an arrest. - Search incidental to an arrest in Moreno
versus Argot, Chi, obviously, making an arrest may take from the person any
money or property upon his person which was used in the Commission of
the crime or the fruit of the crime, or which might furnish the prisoner with
the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in
evidence of the trial of the case.

2. Search of moving vehicles.

3. Seizure of evidence in Plainview
4. Customs searches
5. Where there is waiver of the right
6. Exigent circumstances
7. Stop and frisk rule.
 Warrantless arrest is generally illegal. The cases where a person may be arrested even without a
warrant is summarized under Rule 13, Section 5 of Rules of Criminal Procedure:
 1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested as committed is actually
committing or is about to commit an offense. They called this the flagrante delicto
rule.
 A warrantless arrest cannot be affected 3 months after the Commission of the crime, or even six
days.
 Entrapment may or may not be allowed depending upon the circumstances.
 In people versus Doria.
 The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law.
The seduction of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career where the
criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured
into the Commission of the offence charges or that with him there is entrapment and
no conviction may be. Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the
accused. And the criminal offence is completed. The fact that a person acting as a decoy
from the state or public officials furnished the accused opportunity for the Commission
of the offence, or that the accused is aided in the Commission of the client in order to
secure the evidence necessary to proceed there is no entrapment. And the accused
must be convicted. A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment.

 When shall the validity of an arrest be challenged.

 Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the Court
of Jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea
otherwise the objection is deemed waived.

 Okabe versus Judge de Leon - it was held that an application for bail is not considered a waiver
of the right of a request to question the legality of arrest.
 The right to privacy is the right to be left alone.

QUIZ 1:

1. In the interregnum, from February 26 to March 25, 1986, was there a

constitution in effect? Explain your answer.
 There was no constitution during the interregnum.

2. Was a Bill of Rights operative during that time? Explain your answer.
 The Bill of Rights is written in the Constitution, since there
was no constitution at that time, there was also no Bill of
Rights.

3. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, Ramas and

Dimaano, GR No. 104678, July 21, 2003, how did the Court (majority
opinion) justify that the search in the residence of Dimaano was
unlawful (that she has the right against unreasonable search and
seizure)? Explain.
 The court (majority opinion) justified that in spite of the
absence of a constitution, there is a protection that is given
in so far as the right of Dimaano against search and
 seizure is concerned. Constitution and citizens are
protected by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, an international law that covered it well.
And we all know in our declaration of principles,
international law may become municipal law if said if the
court says so, and this is what the Supreme Court is saying
so that the international law, the International Covenant,
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are both
international laws that are applicable to Philippine setting

4. How did the majority opinion justify its ruling that the seized properties
were inadmissible and excluded as evidence?
 On the exclusion of evidence, clearly, the raiding team
exceeded its authority when it seized the items not
included in the warrant. They entered the house, they
presented the search warrant, they searched and
confiscated items, even items not included in the search.
So insofar as those items not included in the search
warrant is inadmissible as evidence.

5. How did Justice Puno justify in his separate concurring opinion that
Dimaano has a right against unreasonable search and seizure?
 Now, in the separate concurring opinion of Puno, he agrees
that the Bill of Rights was not operational during the
interregnum. He said that Dimaano is entitled to be
protected, not by the Bill of Rights, because non availing,
not also by the covenant, but by the fact that it is her
natural right. And this unreasonable search and seizures
and exclusionary rule. If the people lost their right to life,
liberty and property, Puno is of the view that under natural
law, Dimaano has right against unreasonable search and
seizure considering the debate against unreasonable
search and seizure is a natural right. The government
cannot claim that Dimaano is not entitled to the right for
the vision alone, that there was no constitution granting
the right at that time the search was conducted. This right
of demano precedes the Constitution because it is a
natural right.

6. How did Justice Puno justify his opinion that the properties of Dimaano
were illegally seized, hence, inadmissible in evidence?
 On the second issue - the exclusionary right of Dimaano on
the items list to be excluded as evidence against Demano,
She is protected but it’s no longer based on the Covenant
 on Civil and Political Rights, or of the Human Declaration of
Human Rights, but, based on the Freedom Constitution
because at the time that she asked for the exclusion of
those illegally searched illegally seized evidence, there was
already the proclamation #3.

Section 3: The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
orders of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding

 General mandate: The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable.

Exceptions: (1) Except upon lawful orders of the court
(2) When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law
 The second paragraph is the exclusionary rule : Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose.

 The privacy of communication and correspondence is not absolute.

 What type of communication and correspondence is covered by the provision?

 The provision covers letters and messages. It also covers wired taps and other
methods of electronic eavesdropping.

 Section 3 allows intrusion into the privacy of communication and correspondence. What are the
conditions for such allowable intrusion?
 The intrusion is allowed upon lawful orders of the court or when public safety
and order requires it as prescribed by law.

 What is the basis of the court in allowing intrusion?

 The court may order intrusion based on the requirements of probable cause.
This is so because the intrusions into communication and correspondence is one
kind of search. It is in the nature of the search that is discussed in Section 2.

 What is the meaning of the exclusionary rule under paragraph 2, Section 3?

 The exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence for
any purpose and in any proceeding.

 How evidence declared inadmissible may be disposed of?

 Illegally obtained evidence, it must be returned to whomsoever it was taken if
it’s not contraband.
o In Ali versus Castro. – on the question of how evidence declared inadmissible is disposed
of, the inadmissibility of the evidence does not mean that it must be returned where it
came from, pending the termination of the legality of these articles, however, it must
remain in custodia legis ,within the custody of the court. If the object is not prohibited
object, it must be returned like the dollars, the money, the jewelry of miss Demano. It
was returned to her. If it is contraband, it can be confiscated.
 o In the case of people versus Andre Martin - the evidence unlawfully obtained by private
individuals does not come under the exclusionary rule. This is because Bill of Rights is
applicable only against the government. In this case, in the absence of government
interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be
invoked against this state. For evidence to come under the exclusionary rule, the
evidence must be obtained by government agents and not by private individuals acting
on their own.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the
press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.

 The freedom of speech, of the press, of expression can be lumped together and be called as the
freedom of expression. Freedom of expression - includes already the freedom of speech or of
the press.
 2 mandates in section 4
1. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press – FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
2. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances

 Our greatest freedom by Antonio Carpio

 An article that was written by former Justice Carpio on the freedom of
expression as the foundation of our free, open and democratic society dated
April 9, 2020. The Supreme Court has ruled, Carpio, that even if the Constitution
is abolished by a revolutionary government, our fundamental rights, which
include freedom of expression, cannot be taken away. The freedom of
expression, which includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is the
foundation of our free, open and democratic society. Without freedom of
expression, all our other freedoms, civil and political, cannot exist. Freedom of
expression is the freedom to engage in fully spirited and even contentious
discussion of all social, economic and political issues.
 Freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Constitution, which mandates
that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech of expression or of
the press.
 A state of martial law that suspend freedom of expression. The Supreme Court
has ruled that even if the Constitution is abolished by a revolutionary
government, our fundamental rights, which include freedom of expression,
cannot be taken away. Because they formed part of customary international law
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are binding on any government,
whether constitutional or revolutionary.

 What speech expression or press include?

  Speech expression and press include every form of expression, whether oral written
state or disk recorded. It also includes movies as well as what is referred to as symbolic
speech.
 Just us wearing of an armed band as a symbol of protest, peaceful picketing has also
been included within the meaning of this speech.

 What are the two prohibitions on the abridgment or curtailment of the freedom of speech of
expression or of the press?
1. Prohibitions of prior restraint
 It is a prohibition of the publication of an article before it is published.
Official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of the actual publication or dissemination.
 Its most blatant form is a system of licensing administered by an
executive officer; Movie censorship, although not place the same level
as press censorship, also belongs to this type; also its judicial prior
restraint, which takes the form of an injunction against publication.
Equally objectionable prior restraint are licensing taxes measured by
gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in the business of advertising
in any newspaper or flat license, fees for the privilege of selling religious
books
2. And prohibition of subsequent punishment.
 It is a prohibition after the publication.
 The mere prohibition of government interference before words are
spoken or published would be an inadequate protection of the freedom
of expression if the government would punish without restraint after
publication

 Chavez versus Gonzalez 2008

o The warning on media against airing the alleged wiretap conversation between the
president and other personalities constitute unconstitutional prior restraint of freedom
of speech and of the press.

 The guarantee of freedom of expression also means a limitation on the power of the state to
impose subsequent punishment.
 When the right to free speech and of the press collides with the right of the accused
o there are rights that are available to citizens, freedom of the press, on one hand, the
right of the accused to fair trial is another right.
o Secretary of Justice vs. Sandiganbayan
 during the hearing in the case of President Estrada, the
Supreme Court said the case involved a petition to allow live
television coverage of the trial of the Former-President. The
case involved the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees
of the freedom of the press and the right of the people to public
information on the one hand and the fundamental rights of the
accused on the other hand. When these rights are raised
against one another, jurisprudence tells us that the rights of the
accused must be preferred. In denying the petition, the Court
said that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an
 inherent denial of due process in the rights of a criminal-
defendant.

o Maguindanao Massacre cases

 petition for radio and TV coverage was requested. The Supreme
Court said that the indication of serious risk posed by live
coverage to the accused’s right to due process left unexplained
in the Estrada case has left a blow to the exercise to press
freedom and the right to public information. Apparent
circumstance makes the Maguindanao Massacre different from
the Estrada cases, one of which is the impossibility of
accommodating all interested parties inside the courtroom
(because there are more than 150 accused). Initially the
Supreme Court said, yes, live coverage maybe done in the
Maguindanao Massacre cases, however, on reconsideration, the
Supreme Court did not allow live coverage as reiterated by
Chief Justice Sereno, the members of the press must be allowed
inside the courtroom but no live coverage is allowed. While the
Court recognizes the freedom of the press and the right to
public information (these rights belongs to non-direct parties)
the rights of the direct parties should not be forgotten. In a
clash amongst these competing interests, jurisprudence makes
it clear that the balance should always be weighed in favor of
the accused (the decision went back to the justification on the
Estrada case for live coverage). Rights belonging to non-direct
parties, the rights of the public to know, to be informed; right of the
press to disseminate information as against the rights of the direct
parties ,the accused themselves.
o Ayer Productions vs. Kapulong.
 The case involved the production of the 4-day revolution, a movie
account of the bloodless coup where Enrile was a principal figure. And
later sought to enjoin the use of his thing, claiming his right to privacy.
Petitioner the air production, asserted right of expression. Again,
between the rights of expression and the private rights, the court said
that against the freedom of expression must be balanced right to
privacy, which is recognized by law as the right to be left alone. A
limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as
permissible, where that person is a public figure and the information
sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute
matters of public character. In this case, there was no doubt that the
events of the 4-day revolution is of a public character. In addition, Enrile
was a public figure which meant that he had no right to prevent the
publication of the story of his participation in the event.

 Freedom of speech is not absolute. Freedom of speech may lawfully be impinged or restrained.
 Requirements for the lawful restraint (of freedom of speech):
1. There must be standards for the lawful restraint of the freedom of speech.
2. The acceptable standards for the restraint: (tests to determine the curtailment of
freedom of speech)
  Dangerous tendency rule – Speech can be curtailed or punished when it
creates a dangerous tendency to bring about the evil which the state
has the right to prevent. The danger is still far away from happening and
you are already curtailing the speech. All it requires for a speech to be
curtailed is that there be a rational connection between the speech and
the evil sought to be apprehended.
 Clear and present danger rule- It is founded on whether the words used
are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the evils that
congress has a right to prevent. The danger is clear and the danger is
present already before the freedom is curtailed
 Balancing of interest rule - the function of the court is to balance the
interests served by legislation against the freedoms affected by it. It
rests on the theory that it is the court’s function to balance the one
against the other and to arrive a judgment where the greater weight
shall be placed. If on the balance, it appears that the public interest
served by restrictive legislation is of such a character that it outweighs
the abridgement of the freedom, then the court will find the legislation
valid

 Freedom of expression, according to Carpio, is not absolute. There are exceptions when the
state may impose prior restraint or subsequent punishment on the exercise of freedom of
expression:
1. 1. pornography,
2. 2. false or misleading advertisement,
3. 3. advocacy of imminent lawless action, and
4. 4. danger to national security
 According to Carpio, the very high bar for its standard to hurdle before the state can successfully
invoke these exceptions, the state must establish that the expression creates a clear and present
danger of an evil that the state has the right and duty to prevent. The danger from the
expression must be extremely imminent, and the evil must be substantive and extremely
serious.

 Diocese of Bacolod. Versus Comelec case. 2015, GR. 205728

o The Commission on elections does not have the competence to limit expressions made
by the citizens who are not candidates during elections. It curtails the power of the
Comelec. That they don't have the competence, they don't have the power to limit
expressions made by citizens who are not candidates during elections.
o Regulation of speech in the context of electoral campaigns made by persons who are
not candidates or who do not speak as members of a political party which are, taken as
a whole, principally advocacies of a social issue that the public must consider during
elections is unconstitutional.

o Why did the Supreme Court say that regulations by COMELEC is unconstitutional?
o Because regulation is inconsistent with according fullest opinion and debate
by the electorate. Such regulation is inconsistent with the guarantee of
according the fullest possible range of opinions coming from the electorate,
 including, and inhibited including those who can catalyze candid,
uninhibited and robust debate in the criteria for the choice of a candidate.
What is specie of speech by a private citizen who is not a candidate that may be validly
regulated by law? --- It is the DECLARATIVE SPEECH – you declare something.

o Regulation of election paraphernalia will still be constitutionally valid if it reaches into

speeches of persons who are not candidates or who do not speak as members of a
political party if they are not candidates, only if what is regulated is declarative speech.
o In declaratively speech you declare something. That, taken as a whole, has for its
principal object the endorsement of a candidate, only service regulated.

o What are the requisites for a valid regulation?

1. The regulation should be provided by law.
2. It must be reasonable.
3. Narrowly tailored to meet the objective of enhancing the opportunity of all
candidates to be heard and considering the primacy of the guarantee of free
expression.
4. Demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve that object.
The regulation must only be with respect to the time, place and manner of the rendition
of the message. In no situation may be speech be prohibited or censored on the basis of its
content. For this purpose it will not matter whether this speech is made within or on private
property.

o DIOCESE VS. BACOLOD (continuation): Comelec order petitioners who are private
citizens to remove the tarpaulin from their own property. Comelec may not order
petitioners, private citizens, to remove it or pulling from their own property. Freedom of
expression can be intimately related with the right to property. The absurdity of the
situation is in itself an indication of the unconstitutionality of COMELEC’s interpretation
of its power.
o Tarpaulins in private properties and in public. There was already a question about the
message in the tarpaulin does not constitute religious speech, the prohibition of which
is a violation of religious freedom. The Supreme Court said that the position of the
Catholic Church appears to coincide with the message of the tarpaulin regarding the RH
law, does not by itself bring the expression within the ambit of religious speech. On the
contrary, the tarpaulin clearly refers to candidates classified under "Team Patay" and
"Team Buhay" according to their respective votes on the RH Law.

 Freedom of expression has never been understood to be an absolute right. Some forms of
speech are not protected by the Constitution.
 2 types of unprotected speech:
1. Libel - is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, or a defect, real
or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
o To be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown to exist:
(1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
(2) publication of the charge;
(3) identity of the person defamed; and
 (4) existence of malice

o When is a speech considered libelous?

 The speech is libelous when the imputation is public and
malicious.
 The imputation is public when the defamatory statement is
made known to someone other than the person to whom it
is written.
 (If you write a letter to one person alone, it is not libel
because the imputation is not public)
 It is malicious when the author of the imputation is
prompted by ill will or spite and speaks not in response to
duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who
claims to have been defamed.
 If a speech is not malicious, even if defamatory, it is
privileged.
 The Rule on privileged communication is that a
communication made in good faith of any subject
matter in which the communicator has an interest
or concerning which he has a duty is privileged if
made to a person having a corresponding interest
although it contains incriminatory matter which
without the privilege would be libelous and
actionable.
 Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be untrue if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown
 (Armovit v. Judge Purisima) Under what condition
the pleadings be privileged communication? - The
prevailing rule is that parties, counsels, and
witnesses are exempted from liability in libel or
slander for words otherwise defamatory published
in the course of judicial proceedings provided the
statements are relevant to the case.

 Second part of Section 4: The right of the people to peaceably assemble cannot and must not
be impaired, but it may be regulated (like the other rights). This right must be discussed in
relation to: Sec. 18, Article 2; Sec. 8. Article 3; Sec 3, Article 13; also Section 2, #5B, Article 9.
 Which rule is more in keeping with the spirit of the constitutional guarantees of free expression
of peaceful assembly and petition?
o The ideal should be the spirit of constitutional guarantee of free expression.
We’re trying to maintain the spirit of the constitutional guarantee of free
expression of peaceful assembly and petition. So if you analyze, it should be
the clear and present danger test. In this rule, you will allow the spirit of the
constitutional guarantee of free expression, peaceful assembly and petition
up to the last minute.
Section 5: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

 1st mandate: No law must be passed in Congress or even executive orders to recognize the
establishment of religion. – NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
 2nd mandate: No law shall be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion. – FREE EXERCISE
CLAUSE
 The text of the section is the same in the 1935 the 73 and now in the 1987 Constitution. The
constitutional provision is a mandate against state intervention under the Spanish Constitution
of 1876.
 Catholicism was the state religion. It was the state religion in the Philippines. One of the
immediate effects of the American constitutional system in the Philippines was the denial to the
Catholic Church of the privileged position it held under the Spanish sovereignty. Corollary to this
was the recognition of the equal position of other religions. The free exercise of religion was first
guaranteed under the 1935 Constitution.
 How did the guarantee of religious freedom find its way to the Constitution?
 The free exercise of religion was guaranteed under Article 10 of
the Treaty of Paris, Espanyol, Filipino, Americano. Condition
among Americano that there would be freedom of religion,
freedom of the exercise of religion. Guaranteed Section 10,
which is guaranteed that the territory ceded the United States
shall be secured in the free exercise of another effect of the
new system was the elimination of any institution that's favored
of Union of church and state.
 The non establishment and the free exercise clauses express
and underlying relational concept of separation between
religion and secular government. It is related to section 6 Article
2, the separation between church and state shall be inviolable.
The constitutional provision is a mandate against state
intervention and religious. The CPP CBCP. Clarified at one time.
That separation between church and state is actually directed at
the state. A prohibition against the government favoring one
church over others. By establishing a state religion or by
allocating public funds to favor one church.
 Then, if you if you study the history of CBCP and especially
during martial law, then this was the time when this particular
provision was put to good use. Perhaps Randy David would
express it more. The separation between the church and state.
In modern society, he said, where political life is organized
under a civil constitution. The church can participate only
indirectly in the quest for social order. Leaving this task to
delete. To form consciences to be the advocate of justice and
truth. To educate in individual and political virtues, that is the
vocation of this, of the church in this area.
  The essence of the free exercise clause is the freedom of belief.
It is based on the respect for the inviolability of human
conscience.
 Cradles versus US
o That adopted the rule that free exercise clause completely insulated the realm of belief
from state action. Living, however, religiously motivated action, including expression.
Subject to police power. Judicial task in free exercise cases is one of balancing the
secular interest of the state with the interest of religion.
 Cantwell versus Connecticut
o Where the constitutional inhibition on legislation and the subject of religion has a
double aspect and one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any
creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose,
cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand. It safeguards the free exercise of the
chosen form of religion.
o Thus, the amendment embraces 2 concepts: Freedom of belief and the freedom to act.
The first is absolute, present to believe is absolute, but in the nature of things, the
freedom to act cannot be absolute. The absoluteness of the freedom to believe carries
with it the coronary that the government, while it may look into the good faith of a
person, cannot inquire into a person's religious pretensions.
o In the moment, however, that belief flows into action. It becomes subject to
government regulation. It does not follow because no mode of worship can be
established or religious tenets enforced in this country, therefore any tenet, however
destructive of society, may be held and advocated with if asserted to be part of the
religious doctrine of those advocating and practicing them. While legislation for the
establishment of religion is forbidden. And its free exercise is permitted. It does not
follow that everything which may be so-called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less
obvious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may did designate. As religion in
this respect.
 Obiter in Centeno versus Villalon. Where the court ruled that solicitation of contribution in
general, which may include contributions for religious purposes, may be regulated by general
law for the protection of the public. An orbiter is part of a decision. Which is not the controlling
decision. It is merely an opinion that is. That is that that is included. In the discussion of the case.
It has no weight in so far as authority is concerned. That is what is called an orbital. Imposition
of civic obligations that might conflict with the person's religious beliefs. There are two cases
here. The first case would be the HERONA versus Secretary of Education. And the second one
would be the ebrill inag. Versus divisions represented with schools of Cebu. In the first case, the
Herona versus Qatari of education. Jehovah's Witnesses challenged. A department order
requiring their children to attend compulsory plug ceremonies. The court said that if the
exercise of religious belief classes. With the established institutions of society and with the law,
then the formal meaning, the religious belief must yield to the law. The government steps in and
either restrains and exercised or even prosecute the one exercising it. This case was decided in
1969. And in 1993. It was real. First, the Herona case was reversed in the Abelag versus division.
Superintendent, Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, where the court said that the Herona case,
as it held that the freedom of religion requires the protesting members be exempt from the
operation. Of the law. So the religion won in the Abrena case. Then we go to the non
Establishment Clause. The non Establishment Clause simply means that the state cannot
establish or sponsor an official. It prohibits. Estate from passing laws. Which aid one religion?
 Hate all religions. Or prefer one religion over the other dapat the state must be. Neutral in the
case of Austria versus NLRC. Secular authority has no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters. In
this case, it was decided whether this is a case that can be tried by our civil courts, or it must be
left to the decision of the religious community. Then Aglipay versus release. The issuance of
postage stamps commemorating the 33rd Eucharistic Congress and the Catholic Church is
violative of the constitutional prohibition against the use of public money for religious purposes.
The glipa here is the supremo aglipay of the Aglipayan. Read that. Then we have the
conversation on taxes and property used for religious purposes. This this is also. Contained in
Article 7. The condition for the exemption is not just that the property be used exclusively for
religious purposes, but that it be used actually. Directly and exclusively for such purpose. Lycium
of apari. Runs a hospital. All right. Is the hospital. Must the hospital be exempt? From reality
taxes. Is it used exclusively? And directly for religious purposes. Then you study Section 5, Article
3. No, I. Mean Section 5. Article 3 must be considered in relation to paragraph 3, Section 28,
Article 6. Charitable institutions, churches and personages. We took that in Article 6. When we,
when we, when we were with that. What is the purpose of the provision prohibiting religious
tests? To allow religious tests would have the effect of formal or practical establishment of a
particular religious faith. We're trying to do away with that. So that's why the constitutional
provision. Prohibits religious tests. The purpose of a religious test is to render the government
powerless to restore the power policy of probing, probing religious beliefs by tests, oaths, or
limiting public offices to persons who have or who profess their belief. In some particular kind of
religious concept. To allow religious tests to have the effect of formal or practical establishment
of a particular religious faith. On the free exercise of the fates of non favored believers. Study
that. It would be a very interesting question. Then the case of conscientious objectors. In this
state. Compel a person to bear arms. In defense of the country. Even when bearing arms is
contrary to the person's belief. The matter must be resolved. OK. Here comes a trainee. Out of
Maine. He was given. A firearm. He refused. To to bear firearms. Even in defense of his country.
What if? The army exempts him. From bearing arms because. On on. On account of his religious
belief. What is the implication? The implication is that the army would be favoring his religion. In
violation of the constitutional provision. What if the army will force him to bear arms? What is
the implication? When the state exempts a person from military service on religious grounds. Is
the state not in effect giving preferential treatment to religious affiliations? Which object to war
of the religious which do not? Which subject? Is the state that in effect giving preferential
treatment to religious affiliations, which object to war? Other religious affiliations which do not.
Is not such an exemption contrary to the non establishment. Nice question for recitation. The
state may support church social action centers. When I was in the capital. The accountant.
When I when I was in the capital, the. The cooperative of San Jose. In baggao. San Jose
Multipurpose cooperative, etcetera. Came to me to ask for assistance for its members who are
farmers. We just said, yeah. To the accountant to release. I am an accountant. Pakhtakor
Pyongyang Kako. I don't know. I don't know if she's retired already. See gene garma. Who was
the accountant then? Very good gentlemen. Because she she really. Was very firm. In her belief
that that is prohibited. It is prohibited to contribute to a religious organization. Casil parallel non
Cooperativa is San Jose. Every legion is San Jose, said Joseph Perry. Yunesi Centro bagao.

Impola while activities of basic Christian communities and church social action centers may not
materially differ from those of barangay groups or of government welfare agencies in motivation and
initial inspiration at least. Church related activities are arguably religious. And therefore should be
jealously protected by the free exercise clause. And since those same activities. Are also arguably non
religious, but social and humanitarian they can be the subject of state support without violating the non
Establishment Clause. There you are. But there are requirements. What are the requirements for
government aid to religious social action centers? The non Establishment Clause does not prohibit all
government aid that might redound to the benefit of religion. To be allowed, however. Government aid
#1 must have a secular. Legislative purpose. Two must have a primary effect. That neither advances nor
inhibits religion, and three must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions. You read
also Estrada versus escritor. This is not Joseph Estrada. How it will demonstrate? How you how a
situation can be explained away? Even if. Many of us believe that it should be punished or it should not
be allowed. OK. The facts are that. Soledad escritor. Is a court interpreting interpreter. She was found to
be living in without benefit of marriage. When threatened with dismissal. She claims that the
arrangement had the blessing of her religion. And pleads religious freedom. Ibaka government
employee Kasia court interpreter, but well young, living in etcetera, etcetera. OK. I was shocked the
other day last yesterday at. Same motel. She lacks shakhan kenyang asawa. You know. The Supreme
Court. Remanded the case to the office of the court administrator to examine this sincerity and
centrality of her claim that we use belief and practice. In the next court, administrator Tapos Spinelli,
Mansa, Posgrado until such time that the Supreme Court relented and they believed her. Yongyang
defence, religious belief and practice. Also a Kenyan castle. Google bucket.