1. ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS

2. The declaration and enumeration of the person’s rights and privileges designed to protect against violations by the government or by an individual & to limit the powers of the State.

3. SECTION 1.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.

4. 2 ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW 1. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - method or manner by which the law is enforced 2. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS - the law itself is fair, reasonable and just

5. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW …all persons under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed should be treated alike

6. ICHONG vs. HERNANDEZ FACTS: The legislature passed a law – R.A. No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” nationalizing the retail trade business by prohibiting aliens and foreign corporations from engaging in the retail trade. Petitioner Ichong, on behalf of other alien residents, brought an action for judicial declaration that R.A. No. 11 80 is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause and depriving them of their liberty and property without due process of law. ISSUES: Whether or not R.A. No. 1180 violates the ‘due process of law’ and equal protection clause’

7. HELD: There is no violation of due process of law. R.A. No. 1180 was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to the national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business – the law is reasonable. R.A. No. 1180 does not violate the equal protection clause as there exist sufficient grounds for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation – the alien resident owes allegiance to the country of his birth. His stay here is for personal convenience. His gains and profits are not invested in industries that would help the country’s economy and increase national wealth.

8. DECS vs. SAN DIEGO FACTS: Mr. San Diego took the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test) three times and flunked it three times also. When he applied to take it again, the DECS rejected his application on the basis of the MECS rule. ISSUE: Whether or not MECS rule on the ‘3 flunk rule’ violates the equal protection clause. HELD: No. A law does not have to operate with equal force on all persons or things. In the present case, there exists a substantial distinction between medical students and other students who are not subjected to the ‘3 flunk rule’. The medical profession directly affects the lives of the people. An accountant does not hold the same delicate responsibility.

9. SECTION 2.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. SECTION 2.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

10. “probable cause” - such facts and circumstances sufficient to induce a cautious man to believe that a crime might have been committed.

11. SEARCH WARRANT - an order in writing issued by the court commanding a peace officer to search for certain personal property. WARRANT OF ARREST - an order in writing issued by the court commanding a peace officer to arrest a person.

12. INSTANCES WHEN SEARCH MAY BE MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT 1. There is a consent or waiver 2. Search is incidental to a lawful arrest 3. When forfeited goods are being transported by powerful ship or other automobiles 4. Plain View Doctrine 5. Inspection is in the exercise of Police Power 6. Searches made at the border or at the ports of entry

13. WHEN ARREST MAY BE MADE WITHOUT WARRANT 1. When, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. 2. When an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts. 3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee.

14. PADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: One night, in Angeles City, Manarang and his compadre heard a screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard breaking of a vehicle running very fast. Maranang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle had hit somebody. He reported the incident to the police who chased the vehicle which was cut and forced to stop in the Abacan bridge. The driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising both hands. Because he was wearing a short leather jacket, a gun tucked on his waist was revealed. He was arrested and firearms were confiscated.

15. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not his warrantless arrest is legal. HELD: 1) Yes. The warrantless arrest is legal. Padilla was arrested after he has committed an offense – hit and run – in the presence of the arresting person. “Presence” does not only require that the arresting person sees the offense but also when he hears the disturbance and proceed at once to the scene. In fact, caught in the act with possession of unlicensed firearm and ammunition is another offense which Padilla is actually committing when he was arrested.

16. ISSUES: 2) Whether or not the warrantless seizure of firearms is legal. HELD: Yes. The seizure Padilla’s firearms falls under the following instances for a warrantless seizure: *Plain View Doctrine – the revolver and magazine were tucked in Padilla’s waist and pocket when he raised his hands after alighting from pajero. *Search incidental to a lawful arrest –searches were made during the commission of two offenses ( hit & run and illegal possession of firearms)

17. SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2)Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

18. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 “Human Security Act of 2007.” SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

19. Gaanan vs. IAC FACTS: During the telephone conversation between Atty. Pintor and Atty. Laconico regarding the settlement of their case, Gaanan secretly listen to it through a telephone extension as per instruction of Atty. Laconico. Gaanan heard that Atty. Pintor demanded P8,000 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. For this ground, Atty. Pintor was charged with the crime of robbery/extortion using the testimony of Gaanan on the conversation as evidence. Atty. Pintor argues that the telephone conversation cannot be used as evidence for being violative of the Anti- Wiretapping Act (which prohibits a person from tapping any wire or cable by using other device to secretly overhear a communication.

20. ISSUE: Whether or not listening to the private conversation on an extension line is a violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act. HELD:No. The law refers to a tap of a wire or use of a device for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, recording the communication. There must be physical interruption. Telephone extension was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there foe ordinary office use.

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

22. ELEMENTS: 1. Freedom from Previous Restraint 2. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment

23. EXCEPTION: CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER RULE - abridgment of the liberty can be justified only where there exists substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil which the government has the right to prevent. - abridgment of the liberty can be justified only where there exists substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil which the government has the right to prevent.

24. Malabanan vs. Ramento FACTS: By virtue of the permit granted by Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, officers of the Student Council held a general assembly at the basketball court of the school. They manifested their opposition to the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. They marched toward the area which is outside the coverage of the permit. As a result, classes were disturbed, work of the non-academic personnel were stopped because of the noise created. The school imposed the penalty of 1 year suspension for holding an illegal assembly. ISSUE:Whether or not such act of the school is a violation of freedom of speech and right to assemble.

25. HELD:Yes. Student leaders would be ineffective if they speak in the guarded language. Audience may give the speakers the benefit of their applause, but with the activity taking place in the school premises during daytime, no clear and present danger of public is discernible.

26. Ayer Production vs. Capulong FACTS: Ayer Productions, a movie production company, proposed a motion picture entitled “Four Day Revolution” (documentary film) which is a reenactment of the events that made possible the EDSA Revolution where Juan Ponce Enrile played a major role. Pending the shooting, Enrile filed a complaint with TRO seeking to stop Ayer Production from producing the movie for being violative of his right of privacy. The court issued the TRO. On the other hand, Ayer Production claim that the filming of the motion picture is just an exercise of their freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand, Ayer Production claim that the filming of the motion picture is just an exercise of their freedom of speech and expression. ISSUES: 1.) whether or not Enrile’s right of privacy is violated 2.) whether or not Ayer Production’s freedom of speech and expression is violated 2.) whether or not Ayer Production’s freedom of speech and expression is violated

27. HELD: 1.) No. Right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication of matters of public interest. Such right is the right to free from the wrongful publicizing of the private matters and affairs of an individual which are outside the parameters of legitimate public concern. The film relates to a highly critical stage in the history of this country and as such, must be regarded as having passed into the public domain and as an appropriate subject for speech and expression and coverage by any form of mass media. The film is not all about Enrile. 2.) Yes. The issuance of TRO by the court is a ‘prior restraint’ from filming and producing the entire motion picture. No one knew yet what the completed film would look like, therefore, no clear and present danger is present.

28. People vs. Kottinger FACTS: Camera Supply Co., managed by Kottinger, was raided. The authorities confiscated the post cards (portraying the inhabitants of the country in native dress as they appear and can be seen in the regions in which they live) for being obscene and indecent publications. ISSUE: whether or not such postcards are obscene or indecent HELD: No. Obscene ordinarily means something which is offensive to chastity; something that is foul, offensive to pure minded persons. The photos in question merely depict persons as they actually live, without attempted presentation of persons in unusual dress. The moral sense of the people in the Philippines would not be shocked by photographs of this type.

29. 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.

30. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - right to worship and to entertain such religious views without dictation or interference by any person 2 ASPECTS OF RELIGIOUS PROFESSION & WORSHIP 1. Freedom to believe (absolute) 2. Freedom to act in accordance with such belief (limited)

31. American Bible Society vs. City of Manila FACTS: ABS, a missionary corporation, has been selling bibles and other religious materials until the City of manila informed them that it was conducting the business of general merchandise without mayor’s permit and municipal license, hence, a violation of an ordinance. To avoid the closing of its business, ABS paid under protest the said permit and license fee arguing that it is not engaged in the business of general merchandise but is just exercising its right to religion and it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles. ISSUE : whether or not right to religion of ABS is violated when City of Manila required it to pay license fees.

32. HELD: Yes. ABS does not engaged in the business of selling merchandise for profit. Imposition of license fee would impair its free exercise of religious profession and worship, as well as, its right to disseminate religious beliefs.

33. SECTION 6.The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

34. Manotoc, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals FACTS: Manotoc, Jr. and other stockholders of Manotoc Securities, Inc. filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a petition for the appointment of a management committee. Because of the fake document submitted by Manotoc, Jr. to SEC, a criminal case for estafa was filed. Pending disposition, SEC requested the Bureau of Immigration to issue a Hold Departure Order (HDO) against him. Manotoc, Jr. filed before the court a Motion for permission to leave the country stating his ground his desire to go to the U.S. relative to his business transactions invoking his right to travel.

35. ISSUE: Whether or not Manotoc, Jr., facing a criminal charges has an absolute right to travel. HELD:No. Under Section 6 of Article III, right to travel may be impaired upon lawful order of the court. If accused would be allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reasons, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.

36. SECTION 7.The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

37. SECTION 8.The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

38. SECTION 9.Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

39. 3 INHERENT/ESSENTIAL POWERS OF THE GOV’T. 1. POLICE POWER - power to regulate the use of liberty & property for the promotion of public health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare and convenience of the people. - power to regulate the use of liberty & property for the promotion of public health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare and convenience of the people. 2. EMINENT DOMAIN - power to take private property - power to take private property for public use for public use upon payment of just compensation upon payment of just compensation 3. TAXATION - power to impose charge on persons/properties - power to impose charge on persons/properties for the support of the government for the support of the government

40. SIMILARITIES of the STATE’S INHERENT POWERS 1.They all rest upon necessity because there can be no effective government without them. 2.They are inherent in sovereignty, hence, they can be exercised even without being expressly granted in the Constitution. 3.They are ways by which the State interferes with private rights and property.

41. DISTINCTIONS AMONG THE THREE POWERS As to authority which exercises the power POLICE POWER is exercised only by the government. EMINENT DOMAIN may be granted to public service companies. TAX’N POWER is exercised only by the government. As to purpose POLICE POWER, property is taken or destroyed for the purpose of promoting general welfare. EMINENT DOMAIN, property is taken for public use. TAX’N POWER, property is taken for the support of the gov’t.

42. DISTINCTIONS AMONG THE THREE POWERS As to effect POLICE POWER, there is a restraint in the injurious use property EMINENT DOMAIN, there is transfer of the right to property TAX’N POWER, the money contributed becomes part of public funds As to persons affected POLICE POWER, operates upon a community EMINENT DOMAIN, operates on an individual as the owner of a particular property TAX’N POWER, operates upon a community or a class of individuals

43. DECS vs. SAN DIEGO FACTS: Mr. San Diego took the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test) three times and flunked it three times also. When he applied to take it again, the DECS rejected his application on the basis of the DECS rule. ISSUE: Whether or not DECS rule on the ‘3 flunk rule’ is within the police power of the state. HELD: Yes. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainty within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may entrust their lives and health. While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true in any other calling in which the “public interest” is involved.

44. City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta FACTS: Quezon City government passed an Ordinance which provides that at least 60% of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers. Himlayang Pilipino reacted, seeking to annul the ordinance because such is a taking of property as it restricts the use of the property and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of its property. Quezon City government argues that the taking of the Himlayang Pilipino property is an exercise of police power and that the land is taken for a public use – burial ground of paupers. ISSUE: Is the ordinance an exercise of police power or eminent domain.

45. HELD: Eminent domain. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.

46. SECTION 10.No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

47. Obligation of a Contract is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement according to its terms provided it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Purpose of non-impairment is to protect the creditors, to assure fulfillment of lawful promises. Business problems would arise if contracts are not stable and binding.

48. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES Article III, Section 11 to 22

49. SECTION 11.Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

50. Reasons for constitutional safeguards: 1. A criminal case, an unequal contest. Every criminal case is a contest between an individual and the government, thus, an unequal contest because the parties are of unequal strength. To remedy the imbalance, the Constitution gives the accused several rights.

51. Reasons for constitutional safeguards: 2. Criminal accusation, a very serious matter. A man, accused of having committed a crime, may lose his job or ruin his life, and therefore, he needs all possible opportunities to establish his innocence.

52. Reasons for constitutional safeguards: 3. Protection of innocent, the underlying principle The purpose is to assure that truth will be discovered and that justice will be done. Under the Constitution, the acquittal of the innocent is given preference than conviction of the criminal.

53. SECTION 12.(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

54. (2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

55. SECTION 13.All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.

56. Meaning of “BAIL”: security (cash, property, recognizance) required by a court & given for the temporary release of a person under the custody of the law conditioned upon his appearance before any court. Exception: those charged with offenses punishable by “reclusion perpetua” (imprisonment for 20 years or more) when evidence of guilt is strong (conduct a hearing). NOTE:After the finality of judgment, no bail shall be allowed.

57. SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

58. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

59. Rights of accused during trial 1. To be presumed innocent  unless proven “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” ( amount of evidence required to convict a person)  burden of proof is upon the prosecution  it is better to acquit a person upon the ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in reality be guilty than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be innocent.

60. 2.To be heard by himself and counsel from the arraignment to the promulgation of judgment. “ARRAIGNMENT” - copy of the complaint is being read in the language or dialect known to him, asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. “ARRAIGNMENT” - copy of the complaint is being read in the language or dialect known to him, asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. - it is at this stage that the accused for the first time is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. EXCEPTION: “TRIAL IN ABSENTIA” EXCEPTION: “TRIAL IN ABSENTIA”

61. 3.To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense.

62. 4. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial. Speedy trial – is a trial that can be has as soon as possible, after a person is indicted and within such time as the prosecution within reasonable diligence could prepare for it. Impartial trial – implies an absence of bias in the trial of cases. Public trial - should permit anyone who wishes to attend hearings except in certain cases.

63. 5. To meet the witnesses face to face  to cross examine the witnesses and to test their recollection and veracity  to give the judge an opportunity to see the demeanor and appearance of witnesses while testfying

64. 6. Compulsory production of witnesses and evidence “SUBPOENA” - an order that may be issued by the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in order to testify in behalf of the accused.

65. SECTION 15.The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

66. Meaning of “WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS” a court order directing a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner and show sufficient cause for holding in custody the person detained. Purpose: to inquire the manner of restraint or detention and to relieve the person if such restraint is illegal. to inquire the manner of restraint or detention and to relieve the person if such restraint is illegal.

67. Procedure: 1. Prisoner files a petition to the proper court. 2. Court issues the writ. 3. Writ is sent to the custodian. 4. Custodian produces the prisoner in court explaining the cause of detention. 5. Judge decides whether detention is legal or not.

68. SECTION 16.All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi- judicial, or administrative bodies.

69. SECTION 17.No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

70.  Section 17 of Article III is known as the “RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION”  what is being protected here is the so called TESTIMONIAL SELF-INCRIMINATION only which means getting the evidence or testimony from the accused’ own lips or from the accused’ handwriting.

71. SECTION 18.(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (2)No involuntary servitude in any from shall exist except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

72. Meaning of “INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE”: a compulsory service of one to another. a compulsory service of one to another. Purpose of prohibition: human dignity is not a merchandise for commercial barters. human dignity is not a merchandise for commercial barters.

73. SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

74. “HEINOUS CRIMES” - offenses that are exceedingly bad or evil or those committed with extreme cruelty as to shock the general moral sense such as rape, parricide, murder, robbery with homicide.

75. SECTION 20.No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non- payment of a poll tax.

76. SECTION 21.No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

77. Meaning of “DOUBLE JEOPARDY” when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated by acquittal or conviction, he will be charged again with the same offense. Purpose of Right Against Double Jeopardy: protection against the perils of a second punishment, as well as, a second trial for the same offense. protection against the perils of a second punishment, as well as, a second trial for the same offense.

78. SECTION 22.No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

79. “EX POST FACTO LAW” one which, operating retrospectively, deprives the accused of some protection or defense previously available, to their disadvantage. “BILL OF ATTAINDER” inflicts punishment without judicial trial, thus, a violation of due process of law. inflicts punishment without judicial trial, thus, a violation of due process of law.