Constitutional Law - Bill of Rights

7/24/2019 Constitutional Law - Bill of Rights

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutional-law-bill-of-rights 1/17

P a g e 1

Bill of Rights POLITICALREVIEWER

villadolidnotes

Bill of RightsBill of Rights

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.

1. Person – includes both natural (citizens andaliens alike) and articial persons. But forarticial persons, only their property rightsare constitutionally guaranteed since their lifeand liberty are created by la and thussub!ect to the legislature

". Life# $ot %erely to the preser&ation of lifebut also the security of the li%bs and theo&erall integrity of the hu%an body againstphysical har% and torture.

'. Liberty # o be free in the engage%ent of allhis faculties in all laful ays. t is the %oral%eans of pursuing happiness and pro%otingthe co%%on good. t includes#

i. Right to laborii. Right to choose one*s e%ploy%entiii. Right to contracti&. Right to loco%otion

+. Property # $ot %erely li%ited to acuisition,onership and possession but also use,disposal and fruits of one*s labor. -o&eringReal, Personal and egal Properties.

1) Right to Due Process

Due Process of La ! he right of e&ery%anto be heard, a %andate hich hears before it

conde%ns, hich proceeds upon inuiry andrenders !udg%ent only after trial, aresponsi&eness to the supre%acy of reason,obedience to the dictates of !ustice, thee%bodi%ent of the sporting idea of fair play./ue process is a guarantee against anyarbitrariness on the part of the go&ern%ent onpersonal rights or liberties of the people.

"inds of Due Process

1) #u$stantive ! reuires the intrinsic&alidity of la. ntegrity of the statue Re%uisites&

1. he INTERESTS of the public

generally, as distinguished fro%those of a particular class, reuiresthe interference by the go&ern%entand

". he MEANS e%ployed are necessaryfor the acco%plish%ent of thepurpose and not unduly oppressi&eupon indi&iduals.

Re%uire'ents of a valid ordinance1. 0ust not contra&ene the -onstitution

or any statute". 0ust not be unfair or oppressi&e'. 0ust not be partial or discri%inatory+. 0ust not prohibit, but %ay regulate

trade. 0ust be general and consistent ith

public policy2. 0ust not be unreasonable

When is a la vague(1. 3hen it lacks co%prehensible

standards

". that %en of ordinary intelligence%ust necessarily 45677 as to its%eaning

'. 8nd di9er as to its application

) Procedural : refers to the %ode of procedure hich go&ern%ent agencies%ust follo in the enforce%ent andapplication of las. Ele'ents& $otice and ;earing

Procedural re%uire'ents for *udicial

Proceeding1. here %ust be an i%partial court or

tribunal clothed ith authority< !udicial poer

". =urisdiction %ust be lafully acuiredo&er the person or property

'. he defendant %ust be gi&en theopportunity to be heard

+. =udg%ent %ust be rendered uponlaful hearing

Procedural re%uire'ents for

Ad'inistrative Proceeding

1. he right to hearing, including topresent his case and sub%ite&idence

→ 3hat is reuired is not actual

hearing, but a real opportunityto be heard.

". he tribunal %ust consider thee&idence presented

'. he e&idence %ust be substantial+. he ribunal %ust act on its on

independent consideration of the la

→ here is &iolation of due

process# hen sa%e personre&ies his on decision onappeal.

. he decision %ust be rendered on

e&idence adduced at the trial or atleast attached to the record anddisclosed to the parties

2. he decision %ust be ritten so asto allo the parties to the case toidentify the issues and the reasonsbehind the decision

Procedural re%uire'ents for #chool

Disci+linar, Proceedings1. he student %ust be infor%ed in

riting of the nature and cause of any accusation against the%.

". he student shall ha&e the right toanser the charges against hi%,ith the assistance of counsel if desired.

'. he student has the right to beinfor%ed of the e&idence againsthi%.

+. he student has the right to adducee&idence in his on behalf.

. he e&idence %ust be dulyconsidered by the in&estigatingco%%ittee or o>cial designated bythe school authorities to hear anddecide the case.

2. he penalty i%posed %ust be+roportionate to the o9ense.

he school has a contractual

obligation to a9ord its studentsa fair opportunity to co%plete

the course a student hasenrolled for 6?-6P#i. 7erious breach of discipline@

ii. Aailure to %aintain the

reuired acade%icstandard@



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

iii. Proceedings in studentdisciplinary cases %ay besu%%ary@ cross:ea%ination is not essential

Instances hen hearings are -OTnecessar,&1. 3hen ad%inistrati&e agencies are

eercising their quasi-legislative functions.". 8bate%ent of nuisane per se.'. 4ranting by courts of provisional re!edies.+. -ases of preventive suspension.. Re!oval of te%porary e%ployees in the

go&ern%ent ser&ice.2. ssuance of arrants of distraint and"or

levy by the #IR $o!!issioner%C. $anellation of the passport of a person

charged ith a cri%e.D. ssuance of sequestration orders

(considered a pro&isional re%edy).

E. =udicial order hich pre&ents an accusedfro% travelling abroad in order to %aintainthe e9ecti&ity of the court*s !urisdiction.

1F. Suspension of a ban&'s operations by the0onetary Board upon a pri%a facie ndingof liuidity proble%s in such bank.

Rights included in due +rocess&

1. he Right to -ounsel is a &ery basicreuire%ent of substanti&e due processand has to be obser&ed e&en inad%inistrati&e and uasi:!udicial bodies.

". he Right to 8ppeal is a statutor,+rivilege that %ay be eercised only inthe %anner in accordance ith la.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& Substantial Due Process

A statute regulating alien partiipation in the

retail business is reasonable for wanting to protet the national eono!y fro! alienontrol and do!ination (Inhong vs )ernande*+

A statute herding Mangyans in reservations is

a reasonable regulation% The purpose is toeduate Mangyans and to !a&e the! as loseas possible to their ivili*ed iliipino brothers(Rubi vs rov% #oard of Mindoro+

A statute granting paid pregnany leaves to

wo!en violates due proess for i!pairing the parties' right to ontrat% (% vs o!ar+

Aestheti purposes are not su.ient to /ustify

depriving a person of the right to use his property without /ust o!pensation% (eople v a/ardo+

A statute prohibiting the transportation of

arabaos and arabeef between provinesviolates due proess for i!pairing a person'sright to use his property while having noreasonable relation with its avowed purpose 0supposedly to protet a valuable beast of burden% (1not v IA$+

A law allowing for the e2propriation of lands to

distribute to the poor !ay not beunonstitutional on its fae but it violates due proess as applied when what is to bedistributed is a s!all parel of land to bene3t a few fa!ilies% In suh a ase, the !eans willnot any!ore have a reasonable relation withthe purpose of the statute 0 the distribution of landed estates to failitate agrarian refor!%(4uido v RA+

Procedural Due Process 5hen a deision is rendered in violation of

due proess, it is as if there had no deision at

all% It !ay be atta&ed diretly or ollaterally and even when the period for appeal haslapsed% (6avid v Aquili*an+

It is un/ust to punish a iti*en for violation of a

law of whih he had not notie, not even aonstrutive one (Tanada v Tuvera+

The assu!ed failure of a ler& of ourt to

notify defendant of the proeedings does not

a!ount to suh an irregularity as to be equalto a denial of due proess when onstrutivenotie has been served% (#ano Espanol v alana+

5hen a person has o!!itted indiret

onte!pt of ourt, it is required that he beharged with the o7ense and a trial be had todeter!ine his guilt8 as opposed to when a person is harged with diret onte!pt, wherethe /udge !ay su!!arily onvit hi!% ( eoplev eralta+

Administrative Due Process 5hen an ation is based on a right, due

proess is required8 when based on a privilege, due proess is not required - Aliense granted to an alien allowing hi! to

stay in the hilippines is a privilege, not aright% To revo&e it would not requireo!pliane of due proess (6e #isshop v 4alang+

5elfare bene3ts, although only a privilege,

would require a full-blown trial beforerevoation beause of its i!port tobene3iaries who are !ostly oppressed%)earings are required but they need not /udiial (4oldberg v 9elly+

The revoation of soial seurity bene3ts does

not require the sa!e proesses as therevoation of welfare bene3ts 0 it !ay berevo&ed absent full-blown hearings% 6ue proess is :e2ible and requires for suh proedural protetions as the partiular situation de!ands - #alaning of interests test

(Matthews v Eldridge+ A university's deision not to rehire a

professor does not ause any pre/udie to the professor's status nor to his property interests, whih in this ase are only abstrat%(#oard of Regents v Roth+

) E%ual Protect ion of the La

E%ual Protection Clause : t %erely reuiresthat all persons shall be treated alike, under likecircu%stances and conditions both as topri&ileges conferred and liabilities enforced. tdoes not de%and absolute euality

Re%uisites for valid classi/cation for

+ur+oses of the e%ual +rotection clause

1. 0ased on substantial distinctions→ %ust be reasonable

". Apply to present and future conditions@

'. Be er%ane to the purposes of the la

+. Apply eually to all %e%bers of thesa%e class

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& The three-:un& rule in NMAT is onstitutional for

being based on a substantial distintion between

!ed students, other students and NMAT :un&ers(6E$S v San 6iego+

The reation of the Sandiganbayan is

onstitutional% There e2ists a substantial distintionbetween o!!on ri!inals and publi o.ers whoo!!it ri!es in relation to their o.es% (Nune* v Sandiganbayan+



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

A law that prohibits non-$hristian inhabitants fro!

possessing liquor does not violate equal protetion%It rests on a valid lassi3ation% (eople v $ayat+

A law that disquali3es highly urbani*ed ities fro!

partiipating in provinial eletions isonstitutional% A distintion based on the ino!e of a ity is substantial% It is a !easure of a ity'sapability to e2ist as a separate unit apart fro! the

provine to whih it belongs ($eni*a v $o!ele+ Aliens en/oy the sa!e rights as iti*ens% #ut a law

that li!its the use of o!!on arriers to iti*ensdoes not violate equal protetion% The law does not disri!inate against aliens but viewed as areasonable !eans to enourage loal ship-building%(S!ith #ell v Natividad+

The separate but equal dotrine does not apply to

eduational institutions% Raial segregation inshools is inherently unequal as !easured by intangibles% (#rown v #oard of Eduation+

A probation law, whih allows unequal treat!ent

for persons onvited under the sa!e penal ode,is unonstitutional% (eople v ;era+

A statute that prohibits presribing ontraeptives

to un!arried persons is unonstitutional for beingoverbroad with respet to the !arried and

disri!inatory with respet to the un!arried%(Eisenstadt v #aird+

A statute granting retire!ent bene3ts to

legislators is violative of equal protetion for beingunduly disri!inatory in favor of law!a&erswithout raising any substantial distintion that would /ustify treating the! di7erently fro! other eletive o.ials% (hilonsa v <i!ene*+

A statute prohibiting the operation of laundry

servies in buildings !ade of wood violates equal protetion (1i& 5o v )op&ins+

2) Right Against #earches And#ei3ures

The right of the people to be seure in their

persons, houses, papers, and e7ets against unreasonable searhes and sei*ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shallbe inviolable%

eneral Rule& 7earch and seizures areunreasonable unless authorized by a &alidlyissued search arrant or arrant of arrestE4ce+t& f the search and seizure as %adethrough a &alid arrantless search

Warrant of Arrest = applied to persons to be

issued only by a !udge

Warrant of Search and Seizure# applied to

property to be issued by a !udge or any dulyauthorized o>cer in the eercise of his dutyith his laful !urisdiction. 6. /G6, -usto%s

equisites for a !alid Warrant

1) It 'ust $e issued u+on PRO0A0LECA5#EDe/nition of Pro$a$le Cause&o or the issuane of a warrant of arrest=

Probable cause refers to such facts

and circu%stances hich ould lead areasonably discreet and prudent %an tobelie&e that an o9ense has beenco%%itted by the person sought to bearrested.

o or the issuane of a searh warrant=

Probable cause ould %ean such facts

and circu%stances hich ould lead areasonably discreet and prudent %an to

belie&e that an o7ense has beenco%%itted and that the ob!ects sought inconnection ith the o9ense are in theplace to be searched.

→ Probable cause for the issuance of a

search arrant does $G reuirethat the probable guilt of a specic

o9ender be established, unlike in thecase of a arrant of arrest.

) The e4istence of +ro$a$le cause isdeter'ined +ersonall, $, the *5DEProcedure&1. he !udge personally e&aluates the

+rosecutor6s re+ort together ith itssupporting docu%ents regarding theeistence of probable cause and, on thebasis thereof, issue a arrant of arrest or

". f on the basis thereof, the !udge nds noprobable cause, he %ay disregard the

scal*s report and reuire the sub%issionof su++orting a7davits of itnessesto aid hi% in arri&ing at the conclusion asto the eistence of probable cause

2) The 8udge 'ust E9A:I-E 5-DEROAT; the co'+lainant and theitnesses he 'a, +roduce < he

!udge is $G reuired to personallyea%ine the co%plainant and hisitnesses. 3hat the -onstitutionunderscores is the eclusi&e andpersonal responsibility of the issuing

!udge to satisfy hi%self of the eistenceof probable cause (Soliven v% Ma&asiar+

=) The arrant 'ust PARTIC5LARL> DE#CRI0E the +lace to $e searchedand +erson or things to $e sei3ed→ Aailure to fulll this constitutional

reuire%ent %ay result in anerroneous or arbitrary enforce%entof the arrant. (e2% polie searhing you or

your house using a general warrant )

"eneral Warrant # one that does

not allege any specic acts oro%issions constituting the o9ensecharged in the application for theissuance of the arrant. tcontra&enes the eplicit de%and of the Bill of Rights that the things to

be seized be particularly described Shot$un or %ohn Doe Warrants=

arrants ith a%biguousdescriptions are not alloed.

8 description of the place is

dee%ed su>cient if the o>cerith the arrant can ithreasonable e9ort, ascertain andidentify the place to be search

Person to be seized should be

identied by na%e or by so%edesriptio personae that illenable the accused to beidentied by the o>cer

8 search arrant %ay be said to

particularly describe the things tobe seized hen#i. he description therein is as

specic as the circu%stancesill ordinarily allo or



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

ii. he description epresses aconclusion of fact – not of la– by hich the arrant o>cer%ay be guided in %aking thesearch and seizure or

iii. he things described areli%ited to those hich bear adirect relation to the o9ensefor hich the arrant is beingissued

equisites for a !alid Search

$o search of a house, roo%, or any other

pre%ise shall be %ade ecept in thepresence of#

1. he laful occupant thereof or". 8ny %e%ber of his fa%ily or'. n the absence of the latter, in the

presence of to itnesses of su>cient age and discretion residingin the sa%e locality.

G>cers are also reuired to issue receipts

for the ite%s seized and to i%%ediately turno&er such ite%s to the court.

!AL&D WAA'(L)SS S)A* +

1) #earch 'ade as an incident tolaful arrest ?Incidental #earch)A@ 8n o>cer %aking an arrest %ay take

fro% the person arrested#i. 8ny %oney or property found

upon his person hich as used inthe co%%ission of the o9ense or

ii. 3as the fruit thereof oriii. 3hich %ight furnish the prisoner

ith the %eans of co%%itting&iolence or escaping or

i&. 3hich %ay be used in e&idencein the trial of the case

0@ he search %ust be %ade

si%ultaneously ith the arrest and it%ay only be %ade in the area ithinthe reach of the person arrested

) #earch of 'oving vehiclesA@ his eception is based on eigency.

hus, if there is ti%e to obtain aarrant in order to search the

&ehicle, a arrant %ust rst beobtained.0@ he search of a %o&ing &ehicle %ust

be based on probable cause.C@ he search is li%ited to ocular

inspection2) #ei3ure of evidence in Plain Vie

A@ o be a &alid arrantless search, thearticles %ust be &isible and on apublic place in line ith a cri%inalo9ence

0@ he peace o>cer co%es upon the%inad&ertently.

=) #ei3ure of goods concealed to avoid

custo's dutiesauthori3ed underthe TariBs and Custo's Code?Custo's #earches)A@ he ari9s and -usto%s -ode

authorizes persons ha&ing policeauthority under the -ode to e9ect

search and seizures ithout a searcharrant to enforce custo%s las.

0@ 6ception# 8 search arrant isreuired for the search of a dellinghouse.

C@ 7earches under this eceptioninclude searches at borders andports of entry. 7earches in theseareas do not reuire the eistence of probable cause

) Waiver of rightA@ Reuisites of a &alid ai&er#

i. he right eists.ii. he person had actual or

constructi&e knoledge of theeistence of such right.

iii. here is an actual intention to

relinuish such right.0@ he right against unreasonable

searches and seizures is a personalright. hus, only the person beingsearched can ai&e the sa%e.

C@ 3ai&er reuires a positi&e act fro%the person. 0ere absence of opposition is not a ai&er.

D@ he search %ade pursuant to theai&er %ust be %ade ithin thescope of the ai&er.

) Other Valid Warrantless #earchsuch as&A@ 7top and Arisk@ -heckpoints – but

li%ited to#i. Protecti&e search for concealedeapons

ii. 7earch ithin the per%issible areaof search or the place ith thei%%ediate control of the accusedto pre&ent the destruction or lossof e&idence

0@ 8bandoned propertyC@ 8d%inistrati&e searches (e2% those

onduted by publi health o.ers+

!AL&D WAA'(L)SS A)S(

1@ In lagrante Delicto& 3hen the personto be arrested has co%%itted, is actually

co%%itting, or is atte!pting to co%%itan o9ense in the presence of thearresting o>cer. (E2% In buy-bust operation to

enfore the 6angerous 6rugs At8 In ase of Rebellion-sine it is a ontinuing ri!e+

@ ;ot Pursuit Rule& 3hen an o9ense has /ust been o!!itted and he has probable ause to belie&e based onERS>NA? 9N>5?E64E of facts andcircu%stances that the person to bearrested has co%%itted it.

he pursuit of the o9ender by the

arresting o>cer %ust be continuousfro% the ti%e of the co%%ission of theo9ense to the ti%e of the arrest. here

%ust be no super&ening e&ent hichbreaks the continuity of the chase.

2@ Esca+e fro' Penal Esta$lish'ent&3hen the person to be arrested is aprisoner ho has escaped fro% a penalestablish%ent or place here he is



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

ser&ing nal !udg%ent or te%porarilyconned hile his case is pending, orhas escaped hile being transferredfro% one conne%ent to another.

=@ Waiver of an invalid arrest& 3hen aperson enters a plea ithout ha&ingchallenged the &alidity of the arrest(assu%ing of course he kne he hadthat right and actually intended torelinuish it).

@ #to+ and fris.& 3hen a police%anobser&es suspicious acti&ity hich leadshi% to belie&e that a cri%e is about tobe co%%itted, he can in&estigate thesuspicious looking person and %ay friskhi% for eapons as a %easure of self:protection. 7hould he nd, hoe&er, aeapon on the suspect hich isunlicensed, he can arrest such personthen and there for ha&ing co%%itted ano9ense in the o>cer*s presence.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& The onstitutional protetion against unreasonable

searhes and sei*ures applies only to !aterialthings= @houses, persons, papers and e7ets 0(an$ibles only rule (>l!stead v S+

An aused who fails to raise the issue of the

illegality of a searh during trial, is onsidered tohave waived his right against suh unreasonablesearh and sei*ure% (Manalili v $A+

Evidene obtained by a private person, ating in a

private apaity, without intervention of the stateauthorities is valid% (he ill of i$hts may only be invo-ed a$ainst the State. (eople v Marti+

An arrest of a person arrying dried !ari/uana

fro! Sagada, in :agrante does not require a

warrant 0 &ncidental Search (eople v Mal!stedt+ The searh of vessels, airrafts and !otor vehiles

has been an e2eption to the onstitutionalrequire!ent of a searh warrant% These !ay bequi&ly !oved out of the loality or /urisdition inwhih the searh warrant !ust be sought andseured whih !a&es seuring a warrant i!pratiable% ()i*on v $A+

Trash searhes are allowed beause of the absene

of a reasonable e2petation of privay on the part of the person who disarded the trash ($alifornia v 4reenwood+

An area within urtilage does not bar all polie

observation espeially in this ase where therewasn't any reasonable e2petation of privay 0 publi navigable airspae whih any !e!ber of the publi who glaned down fro! a o!!erial plane would have seen% ($iraolo v $alifornia+

Saturation drives are violative of hu!an rights%

They do not require individuali*ed suspiion (that a partiular individual has o!!itted a ri!e+ andinstead rely on guilt by assoiation, whih is prohibited% (4ua*on v de ;illa+

Subversion is a ontinuing ri!e% 5arrant is

unneessary when arresting a person guilty of suh (!il v Ra!os+

In the fae of BC ar!ed polie!en, an @i!plied

aquieseneD ould not be !ore than a !ere passive onfor!ity to the searh% $onsent under inti!idating and oerive iru!stanes is noonsent within the purview of the onstitutionalright to due proess% (Aniag v $o!ele+

=) Right to Privac, andCo''unication andCorres+ondence

The privay of o!!uniation and

orrespondene shall be inviolable ecept upon lawful order of the ourt, or when

publi safety or order requires otherwise as presribed by law

eneral Rule& he pri&acy of co%%unication and correspondence shall bein&iolable co&ering letters, %essages,telephone (anti-wire tapping law+ telegra%sand any kind of co%%unication. 8nye&idence obtained shall be inad%issible forany purpose in any proceeding/)clusionary ule # 0ruits of thePoisonous (ree Principle1E9CEPT&

1. 5pon laful order of the court, or". 3hen public safety or order reuires

otherise as prescribed by la.

R@A@ =FF ?Anti<Wireta++ing Act)1. he la does not distinguish beteen aparty to the pri&ate co%%unication or a'rd person. ;ence, both a party and a 'rd

person could be held liable under R.8.+"FF if they co%%it any of theprohibited acts under R.8. +"FF (Ra!ire* v%

$a+

". he use of a telephone etension too&erhear a pri&ate con&ersation is not a&iolation of R.8. +"FF because it is notsi%ilar to any of the prohibited de&icesunder the la. 8lso, a telephoneetension is not purposely installed forthe purpose of secretly intercepting or

recording pri&ate co%%unication.(4aanan v% IA$, BC S$RA BBF+

E4ce+tion to the Anti<Wireta++ing Rule

8 police or la enforce%ent o>cial and

the %e%bers of his tea% %ay, upon aritten order of the -ourt of 8ppeals, listento, intercept and record, ith the use of any%ode, for%, kind or type of electronic orother sur&eillance euip%ent or interceptingand tracking de&ices, or ith the use of anyother suitable ays and %eans for thatpurpose, any co%%unication, %essage,con&ersation, discussion, or spoken or

ritten ords#1. Beteen %e%bers of a !udicially

declared and outlaed terroristorganization, association, or group of persons

". 8ny person charged ith the cri%e of terroris% or conspiracy to co%%itterroris%

'. 8ny person suspected of the cri%e of terroris% or conspiracy to co%%itterroris%o -o%%unications beteen layers

and clients, doctors and patients, !ournalists and their sources and

condential businesscorrespondence -8$$G B675B=6-7 GA 3R6:8PP$4

o Penalty in case of unauthorized revelation of classi2ed materials



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

8ny person ho re%o&es, deletes,

epunges, incinerates, shreds ordestroys the tapes, discs andrecording, and their ecerpts andsu%%aries, ritten notes or%e%oranda to copy in hate&erfor% shall su9er a penalty of not less2y1d1"y i%prison%ent

) reedo' of E4+ression

No law shall be passed abridging the /A1freedom of SP))*+, of )3P)SS&4', or of the P)SS, or the /1 ri$ht of the

people peaceably to ASS)5L) and P)(&(&4' the $overnment for redressof $rievances. /Sec. 61

Rationale for reedo' of e4+ression# t

consists of cognate rights to insure free ande9ecti&e co%%unication of ideas to enhanceintelligent political decision:%aking insociety. t is a&ailable insofar as it iseercised in the discussion of public %atters

(Besides, it*s di>cult to eternally controlpri&ate thoughts). t is i%portant tosafeguard such freedo% becauseso&ereignty, hich supposedly resides in thepeople, ould be all for naught if the peopleould be denied their right to participate inpublic %atters.

Ele'ents of reedo' of E4+ression

1) reedo' fro' +riorrestraintcensorshi+a. Prohibits the unlaful curtail%ent of

the of the Ho of ideasb. Prohibits censor fro% applying it on

sub!ecti&e standards in deter%ininghat*s good or notc. here need not be a total

suppression@ e&en the restriction of circulation is an unconstitutionalrestrainto E2a!ples"for!s of prior restraint=

a. %o&ie censorshipb. !udicial prior restraint I in!unction

against publicationc. license taes based on gross

receipts for the pri&ilege of engaging in the business of ad&ertising in any nespaper

d. Hat license fees for the pri&ilege of selling religious books

o 5hen is prior restraint allowed=a@ /uring a ar. E2% 4overn!ent an prevent publiation about thenu!ber"loations of its troops

$@ Gbscene publications.

) reedo' fro' su$se%uent+unish'ent& his freedo% is includedand as i%portant like the rst, for itould be absurd that one can be alloedto epress yet be held liable for suchepression@ hoe&er, it is sub!ect tocertain li%itations as discussed belo.

Prior estraint < Prior restraint %eans

o>cial go&ern%ent restrictions on thepress or other for%s of epression inad&ance of actual publication ordisse%ination.

Subsequent Punishment # %eans

o>cial go&ern%ent acts that punish thepress or other for%s of epression afterthe fact of actual publication ordisse%ination.

Tests to deter'ine hether the

e4+ression is +rotected or not1@ Clear and Present Danger Test < f a

person says so%ething that %ay causedanger or ill bring substanti&e e&il tothe people around hi%, his speech is notprotected and the 7tate has the right topre&ent it. his gi&es ay to 7tate*s rightto self:preser&ation

@ Dangerous Tendenc, Test ! hespeech %ay be curtailed or punishedhen it creates a dangerous tendency toproduce a certain e&il hich the 7tatehas the right to pre&ent. 8ll it reuires,for speech to be punishable, is thatthere be a rational connection beteenthe speech and the e&il sought to be

a&oided. 8n ea%ple is if the content of the speech or epression tends to stirrebellious senti%ents against thego&ern%ent, or to co%%it cri%es. n theeercise of one*s right causes i%pendingperil to oneself and another. ). Shouting

@3reD inside a !ovie house !ay ause pani"in/ury

2@ 0alancing of Interests Test < hecourts should B88$-6 the P5B-$6R67 ser&ed by legislation on onehand and the AR66/G0 GA 7P66-; (orany other constitutional right) on theother. he courts ill then decide herethe greater eight should be placed

Li'itations of reedo' of E4+ression

1@ 7ub!ect to PG-6 PG36R and can beregulated to protect public interest

@ /oes not include ideas o9ensi&e topublic order or decency, or reputation of persons

A@ reedo' of #+eech

he doctrine on freedo% of speech as

for%ulated pri%arily for the protection of JcoreK speech, i%e% speeh whiho!!uniates politial, soial or religious

ideas% These en/oy the sa!e degree of protetion% $o!!erial speeh, however, doesnot%

Protected Speech < includes e&ery for% of

epression, hether oral, ritten, tape or



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

disc recorded. t includes %otion pictures asell as hat is knon as sy%bolic speechsuch as the earing of an ar%band as asy%bol of protest. Peaceful picketing hasalso been included ithin the %eaning of speech.

7nprotected Speech

8. Libel !alid defense in an action for libel or slander A@ 6>$TRINE > AIR $>MMENT (%S%

Rule+% hese are state%ents of GP$G$, not of fact, and are notconsidered actionable, e&en if theords used are neither %ild norte%perate. 3hat is i%portant isthat the opinion is the true andhonest opinion of the person. hestate%ents are not used to attackpersonalities but to gi&e one*sopinion on decisions and actions.

0@ >INI>NS% 3ith respect to publicpersonalities (politicians, actors,anyone ith a connection to anesorthy e&ent), opinions can beaired regarding their publicactuations. -o%%ent on theirpri&ate li&es, if not ger%ane to theirpublic personae, are not protected.

9. 4bscenity A@ (est for obscenity (Miller v% $alifornia+

i. 3hether the a&erageperson, applying conte%poraryco%%unity standards ould ndthat the ork, taken as a hole,

appeals to the prurient interest.ii. 3hether the ork

depicts or describes, in apatently o9ensi&e ay, seualconduct, specically dened byla.

iii. 3hether the ork, takenas a hole, lacks serious literary,artistic, political or scientic&alue.

. Procedure for seizure of alle$edly obscene publicationsi. 8uthorities %ust apply

for issuance of search arrant.

ii. -ourt %ust be con&incedthat the %aterials are obscene.8pply clear and present dangertest.

iii. =udge ill deter%inehether they are in factJobsceneK.

i&. =udge ill issue a searcharrant.

&. Proper action should beled under 8rt. "F1 of the RP-.

&i. -on&iction is sub!ect toappeal.

*ommercial Speech < 8 co%%unication

hich no %ore than proposes a co%%ercialtransaction.1@ o en!oy protection#

a@ t %ust not be false or %isleading@and

$@ t should not propose an illegaltransaction.

@ 6&en truthful and laful co%%ercialspeech %ay be regulated if#a@ 4o&ern%ent has a substantial

interest to protect@$@ he regulation directly ad&ances

that interest@ andc@ t is not %ore etensi&e than is

necessary to protect that interest.

0@ Right of Asse'$l, and Petition forRedress

he right to laful asse%bly is i%portant

because there are certain issues better resol&edafter echanging &ies in a %eeting for thatpurpose. 7uch public %eeting is e9ecti&e inairing ideas or concerns a9ecting the public.

his right is not sub!ect to prior restraint (e. the

need for a per%it) unless the %eeting takesplace in a public area (e. Rizal Park).

Rules on Right of Asse'$l, and

Petition1@ he standards for alloable i%pair%ent

of speech and press also apply to theright of asse%bly and petition.

@ Rules on asse%bly in public places#i. 8pplicant should infor% the licensing

authority of the date, the public placehere and the ti%e hen theasse%bly ill take place.

ii. he application should be led aheadof ti%e to enable the public o>cial

concerned to appraise hether thereare &alid ob!ections to the grant of theper%it or to its grant, but in anotherpublic place. he grant or refusalshould be based on the application of the -lear and Present /anger est.

iii. f the public authority is of the &iethat there is an i%%inent and gra&edanger of a substanti&e e&il, theapplicants %ust be heard on the%atter.

i&. he decision of the public authority,hether fa&orable or ad&erse, %ust betrans%itted to the applicants at theearliest opportunity so that they %ay,

if they so desire, ha&e recourse to theproper !udicial authority.

2@ Rules on asse%bly in pri&ate properties#Gnly the consent of the oner of theproperty or person entitled to possessionthereof is reuired.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence&

A statute prohibiting the sale or donation of !ass

!edia print spae and air ti!e for a!paign or politial purposes e2ept to the $o!ele held toonstitutional beause of (B+ li!ited sope,duration, harater of restrition and (F+ lear andreasonable relation between statute and ob/etive

(N$ v $o!ele+ 5hen what is restrited is not the ontent of

politial ads but only their inidents, theappliation of the lear and present danger rule isinappropriate - $ontent-neutral restrition (>s!enav $o!ele+



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

Movies !ay be regulated through prior restraint%

They are pri!arily used for entertain!ent, asopposed to newspapers and broadast !edia that are !ainly used to disse!inate publi infor!ationwhih info is neessary in a de!oray% (Ti!es il!$orp v $ity of $hiago+

A publi trial is not synony!ous with a publii*ed

trial% (In Re= Request Radio-T; $overage+

The law prohibits re&less disregard for private

reputation, to whih even /udges have a right% <ournalists are required to e2erise bona 3de arein asertaining the truth of a state!ent they publish% (In Re= E!il % <urado+

Truth is a valid defense in a defa!atory state!ent

!ade against the ats of a publi o.ial,regardless of whether or not person ated withgood intentions and /usti3able !otives% (;asque* v $A+

2) reedo' offro' Religion

Clauses under reedo' of

Religion1@ -on<esta$lish'ent clause : $o la

shall be %ade respecting anestablish%ent of religion, or prohibitingthe free eercise thereof.

@ ree e4ercise of Religion < he freeeercise and en!oy%ent of religiousprofession and orship, ithoutdiscri%ination or preference, shallfore&er be alloed. $o religious testshall be reuired for the eercise of ci&ilor political rights.

Distinction $eteen the clauses

8. 'on#establishment clause # t is&iolated by the enact%ent of las hichestablish an o>cial religion hetherthose las operate directly to coercenon:obser&ing indi&iduals or not. hetest of co%pliance ith the non:establish%ent clause can be stated asfollos# 3hat are the purposes andpri%ary e9ect of the enact%entL f either is the ad&ance%ent or inhibitionof religion, the la &iolates the non:establish%ent clause. hus, in order fora la to co%ply ith the non:establish%ent clause, to reuisites%ust be %et. Airst, it has a secularlegislati&e purpose. 7econd, its pri%arye9ect neither ad&ances nor inhibitsreligion.

9. he free e4ercise of religion clauseithdras fro% legislati&e poer theeertion of any restraint on the freeeercise of religion. n order to sho a&iolation of this clause, the persona9ected %ust sho the coerci&e e9ectof the legislation as it operates againsthi% in the practice of his religion. 3hilethe freedo% to belie&e (non:

establish%ent) is absolute, the %o%entsuch belief Hos o&er into action, itbeco%es sub!ect to go&ern%entregulation.

Re%uisites for Ggovern'ent aidH to $e

alloa$le&1@ t %ust ha&e a secular legislati&e

purpose@@ t %ust ha&e a pri%ary e9ect that

neither ad&ances nor inhibits religion@

2@ t %ust not reuire ecessi&eentangle%ent ith recipient institutions.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& National unity is not a su.ient /usti3ation for

o!pelling <ehovah's 5itnesses to perfor! the :agsalute against their religious beliefs% nity !ay not be obtained through o!pulsion% (5est ;irginia#oard of Eduation v #arnette+

There are no threats to publi safety whenstudents are e2e!pted fro! attending the :agere!ony on the basis of religious beliefs%Therefore, the e2e!ption is valid% Students !ay bedisiplined however, should they disrupt the patrioti e2erises and o!!it breah of peae%(Ebranilag v 6ivision Superintendent of Shools+

The printing of postage sta!ps on the oasion of a $atholi elebration, when not religiously !otivated, is not unonstitutional, even when the$atholi $hurh reeived inidental propagandathereby% (Aglipay v Rui*+

A general regulation of soliitation, whih does not involve any religious test nor obstrut or delay soliitation of religious funds, is onstitutional%There e2ists a legiti!ate govern!ent interest inregulating soliitation% ($enteno v ;illalon-ornillos+

The grant of seular te2tboo&s to all shools, evenwhen it inludes parohial shools, isonstitutional% The non-establish!ent lause doesnot prevent a state fro! e2tending the bene3ts of state laws to all iti*ens without regard to their religious a.liation% (#oard of Eduation v Allen,BGH+

E2erise of religious freedo! (as opposed to real!of religious belief+ an be regulated by the statewhen it will bring about the lear and present danger of so!e substantive evil whih $ongresshas a duty to prevent% The non-establish!ent lause also prohibits any at of the state favoringany religion, by proteting it against atta& by another religion% (IN$ v $A, BGGH+

A :at liense ta2, pay!ent of whih is a onditionof the e2erise of the onstitutional privilege of religion, is unonstitutional% (A!erian #ible Soiety v $ity of Manila,BGJ+

The state's interest in universal eduation has tobe balaned against the traditional interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their hildren%Sine there is no showing that !inus two e2tra

years of o!pulsory eduation of A!ish hildrenwould beo!e burdens to soiety, the freee2erise lause should prevail over state interests%(5isonsin v 1oder, BGJF+

=) Right to Li$ert, of A$ode andTravel

The liberty of abode and of hanging the

sa!e within the li!its presribed by lawshall not be i!paired e2ept upon lawfulorder of the ourt% Neither shall the right totravel be i!paired e2ept in the interest of national seurity, publi safety or publihealth, as !ay be provided by law%

Rights uaranteed

1. Li$ert, of a$ode < Areedo% to chooseand change one*s place of abode.



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

". Right to travel : Areedo% to tra&elithin the country and outside. 0ay becurtailed e&en by ad%inistrati&e o>cers(e2% passport o.ers+ in the interest of national security, public safety, or publichealth, as %ay be pro&ided by la.→ his right is secures the person but

not his &ehicle or %ode of tra&el andli%ited ithin the territorialboundaries of the Philippines.Passport M ;old /eparture Grder

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& rostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not

hattels but hil% iti*ens, proteted by the sa!eonstitutional guarantee of freedo! of abode% They !ay not be o!pelled to hange their do!iile inthe absene of a law allowing suh% (;illavienio v ?u&ban, BGBG+

?aws for the segregation of lepers have been

provided the world over and is supported by highsienti3 authority% Suh segregation is pre!ised

on the duty to protet publi health% (?oren*o v 6ir%of )ealth, BGFJ+

#ail posted in a ri!inal ase, is a valid restrition

on the right to travel% #y its nature, it !ay serve asa prohibition on an aused fro! leaving the /urisdition of the hilippines where orders of hilippine ourts would have no binding fore%(Manoto& v $A, BGH+

The liberty of abode and the right to travel

inludes the right to leave, reside and travel withinone's ountry but it does not inlude the right toreturn to one's ountry% (Maros v Manglapus,BGG+ 'ote: This ase is unique K is not a preedent for @nor!alDases

An order te!porarily suspending the deploy!ent

of overseas wor&ers is onstitutional for havingbeen issued in the interest of the safety of >5s,

as provided by the ?abor $ode% (hilippine Assoiation of Servie E2porters v 6rilon, BG+

) Right to Access Pu$l icInfor'ation

The right of the people to infor!ation on

!atters of publi onern shall bereogni*ed% Aess to o.ial reords, and todou!ents, and papers pertaining to o.ialats, transations, or deisions, as well as togovern!ent researh data used as basis for

poliy develop!ent, shall be a7orded theiti*en, sub/et to suh li!itations as !ay be provided by law%

Rights uaranteed&

1@ Right to infor%ation on %atters of publicconcern

@ Right of access to o>cial records anddocu%ents

Persons entitled to the a$ove rights&

Gnly Ailipino citizens.

Rationale of Right to Pu$lic

Infor'ation& 8ccess to public info isessential in the eercise of freedo% of

epression, for e&ery citizen has a right tokno hat is happening in his<her countryand his<her go&*t so that he<she can epressher &ies intelligently. t can be li%ited if theinfo being sought ould endanger nationalinterest or security (e2% The plan of atta& against

Abu Sayyaf+

Discretion of govern'ent& he

go&ern%ent has discretion ith respect tothe authority to deter%ine hat %atters areof public concern and the authority todeter%ine the %anner of access to the%.

Recogni3ed restrictions on the right of

the +eo+le to infor'ation&1. $ational security %atters". ntelligence infor%ation'. rade secrets+. Banking transactions. /iplo%atic correspondence2. 6ecuti&e sessionsC. -losed door cabinet %eetingsD. 7upre%e -ourt deliberations


The people have a right to aess o.ial reords

but they an't o!pel ustodians of o.ial reordsto prepare lists, abstrats, su!!aries and the li&e,suh not being based on a de!andable legal right%(;al!onte v #el!onte, BGG+

<udges annot prohibit aess to /udiial reords%

)owever, a /udge !ay regulate the !anner inwhih persons desiring to inspet, e2a!ine or opy reords in his o.e, !ay e2erise their rights%(#aldo*a v 6i!aano, BGJH+

ersonal interest is not required in asserting the

right to infor!ation on !atters of publi onern%5hat !atters onstitute @publi onernD shouldbe deter!ined by the ourt on a ase to asebasis% (?egaspi v $ivil Servie $o!!ission, BGJ+

Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a !atter of publi

onern% ($have* v $44, BGG+

) reedo' of Association

The right of the people, inluding those

e!ployed in the publi and private setors,to for! unions, assoiations, or soieties for

purposes not ontrary to law, shall not beabridged%

Rationale for reedo' of Association&

he right to for% associations shall not bei%paired ithout due process of la and isthus an aspect of the right of liberty. t isalso an aspect of the freedo% of contract. naddition, insofar as the associations %ayha&e for their ob!ect the ad&ance%ent of beliefs and ideas, the freedo% of association



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

is an aspect of the freedo% of speech andepression, sub!ect to the sa%e li%itation. he right also co&ers the right not to !oin

an association. Pri&ate and public e%ployees the right to

for% unions so long as it is laful.;oe&er go&t e%ployees ere not

alloed to strike.

Procedures for ac%uiring +er'its&

1@ 8pplicant should infor% authority, aheadof ti%e, here and hen asse%bly illtake place to allo for reasonable periodof appraisal

@ f application is denied or %odied onthe basis of eistence of a clear andpresent danger, the applicant should beheard

2@ 8pplicant should be notied of thedecision of the o>cer ahead of ti%e sohe could ha&e proper recourse to !udicial

authorities→ he grant of per%its to asse%ble

should be based on the purpose of the speech, not the applicant for theper%it, otherise there ould bediscri%inatory access.

Clear and +resent danger test – 8nyatte%pt to restrict liberties %ust be !ustiedby clear public interest threatened by clearand present danger.

:odi/cation of the +lace here

asse'$l, is to $e held& 8uthorities %ay

%odify place here asse%bly is to be held inthe proper eercise of police poer. he&alidity of a %odication depends on thetest used by the court.1. Preferred reedo's Test – reuires

eistence of a clear and present dangerbefore alloing %odication

". Others ?$alancing of interestsdangerous tendenc,) ! reuires onlyproof of public con&enience andsu>ciency of cause

→ n this case, con&enience assu>cient to &alidate %odication.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& The right to self-organi*ation does not inlude the

right to be given legal personality% (A? v Se% of ?abor, BGHG+

A legislative deter!ination that the $ is an

illegal organi*ation is a /usti3ed prosription of the preferred position of freedo! of assoiation%$ongress was able to show the e2istene of asubstantive evil= an organi*ed onspiray tooverthrow the 4overn!ent to establish atotalitarian regi!e do!inated by alien power%(eople v errer, BGJF+

A lawyer's freedo! of assoiation is not violated

when he auto!atially beo!es a !e!ber of theI# upon ad!ission to the #ar% )e is already a!e!ber of an unorgani*ed group of lawyers, theintegration of the bar /ust provides for o.ial andnational organi*ation% (In Re= Edillon, BGJ

The ?abor $ode prohibits !anagerial e!ployees

fro! /oining, assisting or for!ing any labor organi*ation% As suh, supervisors are banned fro!organi*ing with ran& and 3le e!ployees% They !ay

however, for! separate labor organi*ations of their own (S v ?agues!a, BGG+

J) E'inent Do'ain

rivate property shall not be ta&en for publiuse without /ust o!pensation%

Ele'ents of the +oer of e'inent

do'ain1) There is a TA"I- of +rivate

+ro+ert,A@ Ele'ents&

1. he epropriator enters theproperty

". he entrance %ust not be for a%o%entary period, i.e., it %ustbe +er%anent

'. 6ntry is %ade under arrant orcolor of legal authority

+. Property is de&oted to public use. 5tilization of the property %ust

be in such a ay as to oust theoner and depri&e hi% of thebenecial en!oy%ent of hisproperty.

0@ -o%pensable taking does not needto in&ol&e all the property interestshich for% part of the right of onership. 3hen one or %ore of theproperty rights are appropriated andapplied to a public purpose, there isalready a co%pensable taking, e&enif bare title still re%ains ith theoner.

) Ta.ing is for P50LIC 5#EA@ Public use, for purposes of

epropriation, is synony%ous ithpublic elfare as the latter ter% isused in the concept of police poer.

0@ 6a%ples of public use include landrefor% and socialized housing.

2) Pa,'ent of *5#T CO:PE-#ATIO-A@ -o%pensation is !ust if the oner

recei&es a su% eui&alent to the%arket &alue of his property. 0arket&alue is generally dened as the fair&alue of the property as beteen

one ho desires to purchase andone ho desires to sell.

0@ he point of reference use indeter%ining fair &alue is the &alue atthe ti%e the property as taken.

hus, future potential use of the landis not considered in co%puting !ustco%pensation.

Who can e4ercise the +oer of e'inent

do'ain(1@ he national go&ern%ent

a. -ongressb. 6ecuti&e, pursuant to

legislation enacted by -ongress@ ocal go&ern%ent units, pursuant to an

ordinance enacted by their respecti&elegislati&e bodies (under 4-)



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

2@ Public utilities, as %ay be delegated by

la. 6. $8PG-GR=@ Pri&ate co%panies ser&ing essential

public needs or operates public utilities(P/ or Bayantel)

When is the e4ercise of the +oer of

e'inent do'ain necessar,( t is only necessary hen the oner does

not ant or opposes the sale of his property. hus, if a &alid contract eists beteen thego&ern%ent and the oner, the go&ern%entcannot eercise the poer of e%inentdo%ain as a substitute to the enforce%entof the contract.

*udicial revie of the e4ercise of the

+oer of e'inent do'ain1. o deter%ine the adeuacy of the

co%pensation". o deter%ine the necessity of the taking'. o deter%ine the Npublic useN character

of the taking. ;oe&er, if theepropriation is pursuant to a specicla passed by -ongress, the courtscannot uestion the public use characterof the taking.

When 'unici+al +ro+ert, is ta.en $,

the #tate& -o%pensation is reuired if the property

is a patri%onial property, that is, propertyacuired by the %unicipality ith its pri&atefunds in its corporate or pri&ate capacity.;oe&er, if it is any other property such apublic buildings or legua o!unal held bythe %unicipality for the 7tate in trust for theinhabitants, the 7tate is free to dispose of itat ill.

Point of reference for valuating a +iece

of +ro+ert,&eneral rule& he &alue %ust be that as of the ti%e of the ling of the co%plaint forepropriation.E4ce+tion# 3hen the ling of the caseco%es later than the ti%e of taking and%eanhile the &alue of the property hasincreased because of the use to hich theepropriator has put it, the &alue is that of the ti%e of the earlier taking. B5 if the&alue increased independently of hat theepropriator did, then the &alue is that of thelatter ling of the case.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& There is no @ta&ingD when the statute per!its

ontinued reasonable use of the site as it was usedbefore the regulation and when statute a7ordsopportunities to enhane the property% (enn$entral Trans% $o% v New 1or&, BGJ+

The report of o!!issioners on the valuation of

land for e2propriation is not 3nal% The ourt !ay inrease or derease the valuation if it is grossly

e2essive or grossly insu.ient even when there isno showing of fraud or pre/udie on the part of theo!!issioners% (MRR v ;elasque*, BGB+

<udges an only hoose between the value of the

property aording to ta2 delarations or asdelared by owner or ad!inistrator, whihever islower% ( N)A v Reyes, BGL+

The $onstitutional provision on e2propriation

should be liberally onstrued% 5hereas it uses@landsD instead of @landed estatesD, it should bedee!ed to inlude even lands loated in urbanareas% $ongress is free to follow a syste! of priorities to deter!ine what lands would be the3rst to be the sub/et of e2propriation% (<M Tuason v ?and Tenure Ad!in, BGJ+

The ta&ing of property owned by a !uniipality inits proprietary harater requires /ust o!pensation% ($ity of #aguio v NA5ASA, BGG+

E2propriation does not require infor!ation on land

si*e or area% The test is the nu!ber of people to bebene3ted by the e2propriation and the degree of soial refor! ahieved thereby% (Mataas na ?upa v 6i!ayuga, BGC+

@ubli useD inludes publi utility and advantage

not /ust @use by the general publiD in its literalsense% The power of e!inent do!ain is e2erisedeven when the ta&ing of private property is for thedevelop!ent of housing pro/ets and pilot enterset (rovine of $a!arines Sur v $A, BGGL+

The $o!prehensive Agrarian Refor! rogra! is

not traditional but revolutionary, where the !odeof o!pensation need not be in ash% (Assoiation

of S!all ?andowners v Adiong, BGG+

K) Contracts Clause

-on I'+air'ent Clause# No law i!pairing

the obligation of ontrats shall be passed%

Pur+ose of I'+air'ent Clause& he

purpose of the i%pair%ent clause is tosafeguard the integrity of &alid contractualagree%ents against unarrantedinterference by the 7tate.

When does a la i'+air the o$ligation

of contracts&1@ f it changes the ter%s and conditions of

a legal contract either as to the ti%e or%ode of perfor%ance

@ f it i%poses ne conditions or dispensesith those epressed

2@ f it authorizes for its satisfactionso%ething di9erent fro% that pro&idedin its ter%s.

8 %ere change in PRG-6/5R8

R606/67 hich does not change thesubstance of the contract, and hichstill lea&es an e>cacious re%edy for

enforce%ent does $G i%pair theobligation of contracts.

he prohibition in the -onstitution

refers only to contracts ith respect toproperty. t does not apply to statutesrelating to public sub!ects ithin thedo%ain of the general legislati&epoers of the state and in&ol&ing theright and public elfare of the entireco%%unity a9ected by it. (Illusoria v $AR, BGHH+

8 &alid eercise of police poer is

superior to obligation of contracts.

When Police Poer 'a, $e invo.ed

against the i'+air'ent of contracts(Rutter v Esteban, BGL+

1@ =ustied by an e%ergency – furnishedthe proper occasion for the eercise of the reser&ed poer of the state



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

@ e%porary in nature – operation li%itedto the eigency hich called it forth,hich period %ay be reduced by thecourt

2@ 6ercised upon reasonable conditions=@ %pair%ent refers only to re%edy and

not to substanti&e right@ 8ddressed to a legiti%ate purpose – the

protection of the basic interests of society

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& A law whih o!pels a reditor to aept hilippine

pesos when a debt in S urreny is owing i!pairsthe obligation of the ontrat% ($le!ons v Nolting,BGFF+

A franhise granted to a o!pany to ollet tolls

fro! a bridge is sub/et to the duty and power of the state to provide for the i!prove!ent of ani!portant line of travel ($harles River #ridge v 5arren #ridge, BLJ+

A statute whih subsequently outlaws ga!bling

does not i!pair the obligation of ontrat% A lottery harter is only a privilege whih !ay be revo&edby the e2erise of the polie power of the state,ga!bling being an appropriate sub/et of regulation% (Stone v Mississippi, BJG+

The legislature !ay !odify partiular re!edies for

the enfore!ent of a ontrat without interferingwith the obligation of the ontrat% (Manila Trading v Reyes, BGL+

A law whih allows tenants to hange their

ontrats fro! tenany to leasehold syste! doesnot i!pair the obligation of ontrats beause it was enated pursuant to soial /ustie preepts of the onstitution% (Illusoria v $AR, BGHH+

oning laws, pro!ulgated in the e2erise of polie

power, /ustify nulli3ation of ontratualobligations% (>rtigas v eati #an&, BGJG+

Relations between apital and labor are not !erely ontratual but are i!pressed with publi interest and !ust yield to the o!!on good% $ontrats of labor are e2pliitly sub/et to the polie power%($onferene of Mariti!e Manning Agenies v >EA, BGG+

) E4 Post acto Legislat ion

No e2 post fato law or bill of attainder shallbe enated%

) Post 0act Law# operates

retroacti&ely to a9ect antecedent facts.

Characteristics& 1. Refers to -ri%inal %atters@". Retroacti&e application@'. Pre!udicial to 8ccused.

ill of Attainder : legislati&e act inHicting

punish%ent ithout trial. 8 statue thatapplies either to na%ed indi&iduals or easilyascertainable %e%bers of a group in such aay as to inHict punish%ent ithout trial.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& rohibition in the $onstitution applies to ri!inal

or penal !atters, not to laws onerning ivil!atters% (Republi v ernande*, BGH+

6eisions of the ourts, ad!inistrative rulings on

ourt deisions (i%e%, those issued by the Se% of <ustie+ and anything whih parta&es of thenature and e7et of penal statutes, are overedby the prospetivity priniple% ($o v $ABGGL+

The Anti-Subversion At outlawing the $ is not

a bill of attainder for @applying to na!edindividuals or to easily asertainable !e!bers of a groupD% The use of the word @$D is only for de3nitional purposes and does not purport refer to only one o!!unist"subversive organi*ation%( vs errer, BGJC+

A law allowing the 3sal to proseute adultery

absent a o!plaint fro! the o7ended spouseannot be applied to a ase involving n at o!!itted at a ti!e when adultery an only be proseuted by the o7ended husband% (S v 4o!e* K $oronel, BG+

1 F) -on <I '+ri son'e nt f or D e$t

No person shall be i!prisoned for debt or non-pay!ent of a poll ta2%

8lthough a debtor cannot be i%prisoned for

the failure to pay his debt, he can still be

punished in a cri%inal case if he contracted hisdebt through fraud. n such case, the act he isbeing penalized is the fraud e%ployed to securethe debt not in the default of pay%ent.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& #F (#ouning $he&s ?aw+ is not

unonstitutional for violating the onstitutional prohibition on non-i!prison!ent for debt% It punishes not the failure to pay the heque but theat of !a&ing a worthless heque, whih is ano7ense against publi order% $heque are not !ereontrats but are o!!erial instru!ents whihfor! part of the ban&ing syste!% They are not entirely free fro! the regulatory power of thestate% (?o*ano v Martine*, BGH+

An infor!ation whih !erely reites the failure to pay a si!ple indebtedness does not harge estafaand is purely ivil in aspets% No one !ay bearrested and detained under suh an infor!ation%(Sera3n v ?indayag, BGJ+

The prohibition in the onstitution applies to debts

arising fro! a ontratual obligation (e2-ontratu+and not to debts arising fro! a ri!e (e2-delito+%N>TE however, RACH whih allows subsidiary i!prison!ent only in ases of non-pay!ent of 3ne,not to non-pay!ent of ivil inde!nity% ( A/eno v Inserto, BGJH+

1 1) Invo lunta r, #ervi tude

No involuntary servitude in any fro! shalle2ist e2ept as punish!ent for a ri!ewhereof the party shall be duly onvited%

he concept includes slaver, (absolute

poer of one o&er the other in their ci&ilrelation) and +eonage (condition of enforcedser&itude in hich one is co%pelled to labor inliuidation of so%e debt against his ill.).

Where Involuntar, #ervitude is

alloed&1. Punish%ent for a cri%e here one is

duly con&icted@

". -o%pulsory 0ilitary raining




P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

An At providing for the !ethod by whih the

people of the town !ay be alled upon to render assistane for the protetion of the publi and the preservation of peae and good order isonstitutional% It was enated in the e2erise of the polie power of the state and does not violate theonstitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude%(S v o!peya+

No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free fro! o!pulsory servie, and no statean !a&e the quitting of wor& any o!ponent of ari!e, or !a&e ri!inal santions available for holding unwilling persons to labor% (ollo& v 5illia!s+

1) Wri t o f ;a $ea s C or+us

The privilege of the writ of habeas orpusshall not be suspended e2ept in ases of invasion or rebellion when the publi safety requires it%

→ t is the prerogati&e rit of liberty

e%ployed to test the &alidity of aperson*s detention. he petition forhabeas corpus %ust be acted uponi%%ediately. t is the pri&ilege itself, andnot the rit, hich %ay be suspended.

→ t is a&ailable hen he is sub!ect to# 1)physical or %oral restraint@ ") sentencedto a longer penalty than that issubseuently %eted out to another forthe sa%e o9ense@ ') uestions court*s

!urisdiction@ +) unlaful denial of bail.

→ Procedure# 8s soon as application is ledand the court nds it in the proper for%,

the issuance of the rit follos. t is onlyhen the person in custody is being heldfor a cri%e %entioned in theprocla%ation suspending the pri&ilege of the rit and in a place here it ise9ecti&e such petition is denied. n theabsence of in&asion or rebellion, henpublic safety reuires it, pri&ilege of therit cannot be suspended.

→ he President has the poer to suspendthe pri&ilege of the rit and the 7- hasthe poer to annul such suspension if not based on the " grounds (8rtC, 7ec.1D).

Land'ar. *uris+rudence& The writ of habeas orpus is available as long as a

person has been deprived of o!plete freedo!suh as when his freedo! of !ove!ent, liberty of abode et% are urtailed, despite being tehnially free fro! physial on3ne!ent% (Monupa v Enrile+

The purpose of the writ is to inquire into all !anner

of involuntary restraint% It !ay not issue to o!pela husband to live with his wife% (Ilusorio v #ildner+

The privilege of the writ of habeas orpus !ay be

suspended in ases of invasion or rebellion whenthe publi safety requires it% (?ansang v 4aria+

The suspension of the privilege of the writ

suspends a person's right to bail even after harges have been 3led in ourts against hi!%(4aria adilla v Enrile+

The delaration of !artial law does not auto!atially suspend the privilege of the writ%

)abeas orpus is not a writ of error% Mere errors of

fat or law !ust be orreted on appeal in thefor! and !anner presribed by law and not by habeas orpus% A person already onvited by 3nal

/udg!ent !ay not avail hi!self of the privilege of the writ% (In re= 4aria+

1 2) Ri ghts of the Accused

A@ Rights of +erson under investigationfor the Co''ission of an oBense

:iranda Rights1@ Right to re%ain silent@ Right to ha&e co%petent and independent

counsel, preferably of his on choice2@ Right to pro&ided ith the ser&ices of

counsel if he cannot a9ord the ser&ices of one.

=@ Right to be infor%ed of these rights.

Rights and duties of +ersons involved indetentions arrests or custodial

investigations&1@ 8rrestee shall be assisted $, counsel at all

ti%es Assisting counsel < any layer ecept

layer#i. directly a9ected by the caseii. conducting preli%inary in&estigationiii. charged ith prosecuting o9ense

Waiver of the right to counsel& his

right can be ai&ed so long as it is rittenand upon counsel*s presence and ad&ice of the conseuences of his action. Suh right attahes upon the start of theinvestigation, hen o>cer asks uestionsthat elicit infor%ation, confession orad%issions of the accused thus has begunto focus on a particular suspect.

@ /uties of arresting o7cer a) nfor% arrestee of his right to re%ain

silent and to ha&e co%petent andindependent counsel, in a languageunderstood by hi%

b) 8llo counsel to confer ith arresteein pri&ate at all ti%es

c) Pro&ide arrestee ith a counsel if arrestee cant a9ord one

2@ /uties of Investigating O7cera) prepare the custodial in&estigation

report hich should be in riting

b) eplain the report to arrestee in alanguage understood by hi% beforearrestee attaches his signature orthu%b%ark to the report

c) otherise, in&estigation is null and&oid

=@ E4tra8udicial Confessioni. %ust be signed upon a &alid ai&erii. in the presence of counsel, parents,

elder brothers or sisters %unicipal%ayor, %unicipal !udge, districtschool super&isor, priest, preacher of gospel

iii. otherise, inad%issible

@ Visit or conferences %ust be alloedpersons under custodial in&estigation When rights availa$le&

1. 8A6R a person has been taken intocustody or



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

". 3hen a person is otherise depri&edof his freedo% of action in anysignicant ay.

'. 3hen the in&estigation is beingconducted by the go&ern%ent (police,/G=, $B) ith respect to a cri%inalo9ense.

+. 7igning of arrest reports and bookingsheets.

When rights -OT availa$le&

1. /uring a police line:up. 6ception#Gnce there is a %o&e a%ong thein&estigators to elicit ad%issions orconfessions fro% the suspect.

". /uring ad%inistrati&e in&estigations.'. -onfessions %ade by an accused at

the ti%e he &oluntarily surrendered tothe police or outside the contet of afor%al in&estigation.

+. 7tate%ents %ade to a pri&ate person.

E4clusionar, rule < 8ny e&idence obtainedby &irtue of an illegally obtained confessionis inad%issible against the accused, beingthe fruit of a poisoned tree.

0@ Right against #elf<Incri'ination

No person shall be o!pelled to be a

witness against hi!self%

When is a %uestion incri'inating& 8

uestion tends to incri%inate hen theanser of the accused or the itness ouldestablish a fact hich ould be a necessary

link in a chain of e&idence to pro&e theco%%ission of a cri%e by the accused or theitness.

When the right can $e invo.ed&

1@ n cri%inal cases@ n ad%inistrati&e proceedings if the

accused is liable to a penalty (6.Aorfeiture of property)

Who can invo.e the right& Gnly natural

persons. =udicial persons are sub!ect to the&isitorial poers of the state in order todeter%ine co%pliance ith the conditions of

the charter granted to the%.→ his right can be &alidly ai&ed if the

ai&er is certain, uneui&ocal and %adeby the accused illingly, intelligentlyand understood the conseuences of hisaction.

Distinction $eteen an accused and an

ordinar, itness1@ 8n accused can refuse to take the

itness stand by in&oking the rightagainst self:incri%ination.

@ 8n ordinary itness cannot refuse totake the stand. ;e can only refuse to

anser specic uestions hich ouldincri%inate hi% in the co%%ission of ano9ense.

#co+e of right

1@ 3hat is PRG;B6/ is the use of physical or %oral co%pulsion to etortco%%unication fro% the itness or tootherise elicit e&idence hich ouldnot eist ere it not for the actionsco%pelled fro% the itness.

@ he right does $G PRG;B theea%ination of the body of the accusedor the use of ndings ith respect to hisbody as physical e&idence. ;ence, thengerprinting of an accused ould not&iolate the right against self:incri%ination. ;oe&er, obtaining asa%ple of the handriting of theaccused ould &iolate this right if he ischarged for falsication.

2@ he accused cannot be co%pelled toproduce a pri&ate docu%ent in hispossession hich %ight tend toincri%inate hi%. ;oe&er, a thirdperson in custody of the docu%ent %aybe co%pelled to produce it.

old Pur+ose of right against self<

incri'ination1@ ;u%anitarian – to pre&ent the 7tate,

using its coerci&e poer, fro% etractingfro% the suspect testi%ony hich ouldJfurnish the %issing e&idence necessaryfor his con&iction.K

@ Practical : 7uspect ould usually beunder the co%pulsion to co%%it per!uryto protect hi%self.

C@ Right to $ail

Who are entitled to $ail& 8ll persons

8-58O /68$6/ shall, B6AGR6-G$-G$, be entitled to bail.

Other rights in relation to $ail@

1. he right to bail shall $G be i%pairede&en hen the pri&ilege of the rit of habeas orpus is suspended.

". 6cessi&e bail shall not be reuired.

Who are -OT entitled to $ail&

1. Persons charged ith o9ensesP5$7;8B6 by R6-57G$ P6RP658or /68;, hen e&idence of guilt isstrong

". Persons -G$-6/ by the trial court.Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.

'. Persons ho are %e%bers of the 8APfacing a court %artial.

actors considered in setting the

a'ount of $ail&1. 8bility to post bail". $ature of the o9ense'. Penalty i%posed by la

+. -haracter and reputation of the accused. ;ealth of the accused2. 7trength of the e&idenceC. Probability of appearing at the trialD. Aorfeiture of pre&ious bail bonds



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

E. 3hether accused as a fugiti&e fro% !ustice hen arrested

1F. f accused is under bond in other cases

I'+licit li'itations on the right to $ail&

1. he person clai%ing the right %ust be inactual detention or custody of the la.

". he constitutional right is a&ailable onlyin cri%inal cases, not, e.g. in deportationproceedings.

'. Right to bail is not a&ailable in the%ilitary.

+. 8part fro% bail, a person %ay attainpro&isional liberty through recognizance.

D@ Rights of a Person Charged ith aCri'inal OBense

1) Right to due +rocess of la he accused can only be con&icted by a

tribunal hich is reuired to co%ply ith thestringent reuire%ents of the rules of cri%inal procedure.

) Right to $e +resu'ed innocent he -onstitution does not prohibit the

legislature fro% pro&iding that proof of certain facts leads to a pri%a faciepresu%ption of guilt, pro&ided that the factspro&ed ha&e a reasonable connection to theulti%ate fact presu%ed. Presu%ption of guiltshould not be conclusi&e.

2) Right to $e heard $, hi'self andcounsel he right to be heard includes the

folloing rights#A@ Right to $e +resent at the triala@ he right to be present co&ers the

period fro% 8RR84$06$ toPRG0548G$ of sentence.

$@ 8fter arraign%ent, trial %ay proceednotithstanding absence of accused,pro&ided " reuisites are %et. $ote,that trial in absentia is alloed only if the accused has been &alidlyarraigned.i. 8ccused has been duly notied@

andii. ;is failure to appear is

un!ustiable.

c@ he accused %ay ai&e the right to bepresent at the trial by not shoing up.;oe&er, the court can still co%pelthe attendance of the accused if necessary for identication purposes.6?-6PG$# f the accused, afterarraign%ent, has stipulated that he isindeed the person charged ith theo9ense and na%ed in the infor%ation,and that any ti%e a itness refers to ana%e by hich he is knon, theitness is to be understood asreferring to hi%.

d@ 3hile the accused is entitled to bepresent during pro%ulgation of

!udg%ent, the absence of his counselduring such pro%ulgation does nota9ect its &alidity.

0@ Right to counsel

→ Right to counsel %eans the right to

6AA6-6 R6PR676$8G$.

→ f the accused appears at arraign%ent

ithout counsel, the !udge %ust#a. nfor% the accused that he has a

right to a counsel before

arraign%entb. 8sk the accused if he desires the

aid of counselc. f the accused desires counsel, but

cannot a9ord one, a counsel deocio %ust be appointed

d. f the accused desires to obtain hison counsel, the court %ust gi&ehi% a reasonable ti%e to get one.

=) Right to $e infor'ed of the nature andcause of the accusation against hi'

f the infor%ation fails to allege the%aterial ele%ents of the o9ense, theaccused cannot be con&icted thereof e&en if the prosecution is able to present e&idenceduring the trial ith respect to suchele%ents. Pur+oses of the right&

a. o furnish the accused ith adescription of the charge against hi%as ill enable hi% to %ake hisdefenses

b. o a&ail hi%self of his con&iction oracuittal against a further prosecutionfor the sa%e cause

c. o infor% the court of the facts

alleged. he real nature of the cri%e

charged is deter%ined fro% therecital of facts in the infor%ation.t is not deter%ined based on thecaption or prea%ble thereof orfro% the specication of thepro&ision of la allegedly &iolated.

) Right to have a s+eed, i'+artial and+u$lic trial actors used in deter'ining hether

the right to a s+eed, trial has $eenviolated1. i%e epired fro% the ling of the

infor%ation

". ength of delay in&ol&ed'. Reasons for the delay+. 8ssertion or non:assertion of the right by

the accused. Pre!udice caused to the defendant.

Re'ed, of the accused if his right to

s+eed, trial has $een violated& ;e can%o&e for the dis%issal of the case. f he isdetained, he can le a petition for theissuance of rit of habeas corpus.

EBect of dis'issal $ased on the ground

of violation of the accused6s right tos+eed, trial# f the dis%issal is &alid, ita%ounts to an acuittal and can be used asbasis to clai% double !eopardy. his ould be

the e9ect e&en if the dis%issal as %adeith the consent of the accused



P a g e "


villadolidnotes

GCold -eutralit,H ?I'+artial Trial) <

8ccused %ust be tried in an i%partial andco%petent court in accordance ith the ruleson cri%inal procedure@ ;is<her constitutionalrights %ust be obser&ed at all applicableti%es. he basic ingredient is that the trial beconducted in accordance ith the rudi%ents

of fair play. Pu$lic trial < he attendance at the trial is

open to all irrespecti&e of their relationship tothe accused. ;oe&er, if the e&idence to beadduced is Jo9ensi&e to decency or public%oralsK, the public %ay be ecluded.

→ he right of the accused to a public trial

is not &iolated if the hearings areconducted on 7aturdays, either ith theconsent of the accused or if failed toob!ect thereto.

) Right to 'eet the itnesses face toface Pur+oses of the right&

1. o a9ord the accused an opportunity tocross:ea%ine the itness

". o allo the !udge the opportunity toobser&e the deport%ent of the itness

Princi+al e4ce+tions to the right of

confrontation1. he ad%issibility of Jdying

declarationsK". rial in absentia under 7ection 1+(")'. 3ith respect to child testi%ony

When the right to cross<e4a'ine is

de'anda$le& t is de%andable onlyduring trials. hus, it cannot be a&ailed of during preli%inary in&estigations.

ailure of the accused to cross<e4a'ine a itness& f the failure of theaccused to cross:ea%ine a itness is dueto his on fault or as not due to the faultof the prosecution, the testi%ony of theitness should be ecluded.

J) Right to have co'+ulsor, +rocess tosecure the attendance of itnesses andthe +roduction of evidence in his $ehalf

E@ Rights Against Cruel Punish'ents

E2essive 3nes shall not be i!posed, nor ruel, degrading or inhu!an punish!ent in:ited% Neither shall death penalty bei!posed, unless, for o!pelling reasonsinvolving heinous ri!es, the $ongresshereafter provides for it% Any death penalty already i!posed shall be redued torelusion perpetua%

The e!ploy!ent of physial, psyhologial, or degrading punish!ent against any prisoner or detainee or the useof substandard or inadequate penal failitiesunder subhu!an onditions shall be dealt with by law%

0ere nes and i%prison%ent are not &iolati&e

unless the penalty is barbarous or shocking tothe senses or conscience and such cruelty isinherent in the penalty. But here anunforeseeable e&ent adds to con&ict*s su9ering,penalty is still &alid .

@ Rights Against Dou$le *eo+ard,

No person shall be twie put in /eopardy of

punish!ent for the sa!e o7ense% If an at is punished by a law and an ordinane,onvition or aquittal under either shall

onstitute a bar to another proseution for the sa!e at% /Double %eopardy ule1

t prohibits the prosecution again of any

person for a cri%e hich he has beenpre&iously acuitted or con&icted.

Re%uisites for D* to attach1@ alid co%plaint@ -o%plaint led before co%petent court ith

!urisdiction2@ /efendant has pleaded to the charge=@ /efendant as acuitted or con&icted or the

case against hi% as dis%issed ithout his

epress consent→ /is%issal as based on the %erits or

a%ounts to an acuittal

→ 3hen a defendant %o&es for the dis%issal of

the case against hi%, double !eopardy doesnot attach because of the absence of the + th

reuisite.

Doctrine of su+ervening event : f after therst prosecution, a ne fact super&enes onhich defendant %ay be held liable, resultingin altering the character of the cri%e andgi&ing rise to a ne and distinct o9ence, theaccused can*t be said to be in second !eopardyif indicted for the ne o9ense.

Doctrine of inse+ara$le oBense < 3hen oneo9ense is inseparable fro% another andproceeds fro% the sa%e act, they cannot besub!ect of separate prosecutions. ;oe&er, it ispossible for 1 act to gi&e rise to se&eral cri%es,in hich case separate prosecutions for eachcri%e %ay be led, pro&ided that the ele%entsof the se&eral cri%es are not identical.

Land'ar. *uris+rudence&o *old 'eutrality

A /udge should refrain fro! e2a!ining

witnesses and should li!it hi!self to

lari3atory questions% (eople v >pida+ ubliity does not invalidate a trial in the

absene of a lear showing that the /udgeswould not have been able to render i!partial /udg!ent (Martelino v Ale/andrino+

A /udg!ent is invalid when the /udges'

behavior did not !anifest old neutrality required of o.ers of ourt= disussed ase at lunh, not all !e!bers were present, a non-!e!ber was with group, disussed aseoutside proper venue% (Maros v Sandiganbayan+

o i$ht a$ainst self#incrimination rine sa!ples voluntarily given by the

aused are ad!issible in evidene and donot violate the onstitutional prohibitionagainst self-inri!ination% The onstitution

prohibits testi!onial o!pulsion or thee2tortion of o!!uniation fro! the aused%It does not prohibit inlusion of an aused'sbody in evidene when it !ay be !aterial andwhat is involved is only a !ehanial at !eant to asertain physial attributes



P a g e 1


villadolidnotes

deter!inable by si!ple observation% (4utang v eople, F+

>n a proper showing and upon order by the

ourt, an oular inspetion of the body of anaused is per!issible provided torture or fore is not used% (;illa:or v Su!!ers, BGF+

An aused, unli&e an ordinary witnesses,

!ay not only refuse to answer inri!inating

questions but !ay also refuse to ta&e thewitness stand altogether% ($have* v $A+

An order requiring a 3sal to ta&e ditation in

his own handwriting to o!pare withspei!ens is unonstitutional% It requires not /ust a !ehanial but a positive at ando!pels the aused to reate evidene whihwould otherwise not be in e2istene% (#eltran v Sa!son K <ose, BGFG+

>.ers an't e2trat by fore what is in an

aused's !ind% They also an't e2trat by fore what is in his sto!ah% (Rohin v $alifornia, BGF+

>ral state!ents !ade by a person, while he

was yet a suspet, are ad!issible in evidenealthough he has not been warned of his rights(eople v ?ogronio, BGGF+

o i$ht to *ounsel A !ere enu!eration to the aused of his

ustodial rights does not satisfy therequire!ent required by law% There has to bethe trans!ission of !eaningful infor!ation asto the nature of the investigation withwarnings and advie to the aused% E7etiveo!!uniation and a full understanding of one's rights are required% (eople v $ontinente,F+

The presene of ounsel is indispensable in a

post-indit!ent line-up% #ut while theausatory proess in a line-up has not yet set in, the right to ounsel does not attah% N>TE=?ine-up in this ase was invalidated however,beause it was 3lled with suggestivein:uenes% (eople v )atton, BGGF+

An independent ounsel an't be a speialounsel, publi or private proseutor,!uniipal attorney or ounsel of the poliewhose interest is ad!ittedly adverse to theaused% (eople v >brero, F+

State!ents aquired during a ustodial

investigation, without the assistane of ounsel, are invalid even when third degree!ethods are not e!ployed% nounsellede2tra-/udiial onfessions are li&ewiseinad!issible when !ade without a waiver of the right to an attorney% (eople v Sevilla, F+

o i$ht to be informed of accusation An aused has the right to !ove for

prodution or inspetion of !aterial evidenein the possession of the proseution% (5ebb v 6e ?eon+

5hen ti!e is not an essential ele!ent in the

ri!e harged, an infor!ation that does not speify a preise date does not violate theright to be infor!ed of ausation% (eople v #ugayong+

An aused !ay be onvited of a ri!e,

whih although not the one harged, if neessarily inluded in the latter% (eho v eople+

5hen an aused is harged under one

paragraph of a statute, he !ay no beonvited of an o7ense under a di7erent paragraph without violating his right to beinfor!ed of the nature and ause of theausation against hi!% (eople v ailano+

o i$ht to ail

To deter!ine whether or not an o7ense isbailable, one should inquire into the penalty presribed by law and not the penalty atually i!posed after all aggravating and !itigatingiru!stanes have been applied% (#ravo v #or/a+

ersons detained without having been

harged with any o7ense, also en/oy the right to bail sub/et to a hearing to deter!inewhether or not evidene of guilt is strong%()erras Teehan&ee v Rovira+

o i$ht a$ainst *ruel Punishments Theory of proportional punish!ent 0O to

deter!ine whether a punish!ent is e2essive,

standards in other /urisditions should beta&en into aount (5ee!s v Inserto+

o i$ht a$ainst Double %eopardy The onstitutional provision is not a

prohibition against twie being punished but against twie being put in /eopardy for the sa!eo7ense% (9epner v S, BGC+

There is no double /eopardy when either of

two o7enses, although based on the sa!eat, requires an additional fat whih theother does not - Additional element test (eople v Pui/ada, BGGH+

Constitutional Law - Bill of Rights

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law - Bill of Rights