constitutional law 2 prelims condensed notes

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2: Compressed Notes and Memory Aid for Prelims

Compiled by: Kim Lorenzo G. Calatrava, 1-Wigmore/2-Sanchez Roman Page 1

I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON

POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN, AND TAXATION

A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of

Rights

i. THE BILL OF RIGHTS BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

- Any governmental action in violation of the rights declared in the

Bill of Rights is void, so that the provisions of a Bill of Rights are self

executing to this extent; however, the legislature may enact laws to

protect and enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

- Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self

executing, rather than as requiring future legislation for their

enforcement. The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they are

not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law

ratified by the sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified

by Congress. Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the unyielding rule

that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but

congressional inaction should not suffocate them.

ii. IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE, THE

LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE

INVOKED

Case: Yrasegui vs Philippine Airlines:

in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties

guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put

differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked

against acts of private individuals.

However, Article 32 of the Civil Code affords the guarantee of

protection to individuals for such violations by any public officer or

employee, or any private individual, by directly or indirectly

obstructing, defeating, violating or in any manner impeding or

impairing any of the rights and liberties of another person. Such civil

action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if

the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of

evidence.

Case: Zulueta vs Court of Appeals

A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her

integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the

constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

iii. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A HIGHER PREFERENCE IN THE

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS THAN PROPERTY RIGHTS, DEMANDING THAT

DUE PROCESS IN THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY MUST COME

BEFORE ITS TAKING AND NOT AFTER

-Hence, the order of rights, as enumerated in the law, it is expressed

that No person shall be deprived of (1) life, (2) liberty, or (3)

property

-While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of

human rights over property rights is recognized.

iv. THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE SELF EXECUTORY

Case: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

It is recognized that legislation is unnecessary to enable

courts to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing

the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of

property.

B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their

Characteristics, Similarities, and distinctions, and their Limitations

POLICE POWER

Police power is the power of the state to promote public

welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding

of the three fundamental powers of the State.

The justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est

suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic

utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your property as not to

injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of

sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power

grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as

parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.

It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation

that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to

promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of

(1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property,

(2) in order to foster the common good.

Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the

State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.6

Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied

actions. Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides

enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and

circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits."



Case: People vs Siton

It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution

in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner

of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and

ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant

to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good

and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of

the same.

It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that

it does not owe its origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power

and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and

sovereignty.

"The police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with

self- protection It may be said to be that inherent and plenary

power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to

the comfort, safety, and welfare of society."

may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.

Thus, when the power is used to further private interests at the

expense of the citizenry, there is a clear misuse of the power.

The National Government, via Congress, exercises Police

Power. In a limited sense, the same is also exercised by the local

government.

TAXATION

It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the

government, and their prompt and certain availability is an

imperious need. Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power

to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot

fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being

of the people.

*Limitations on the Taxing Power

1. The rule of taxation should be uniform;

2. It should be equitable;

3. Congress should evolve a progressive system of taxation;

4. The power to tax must be exercised for a public purpose because

the power exists for general welfare; and

5. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution

should be observed.

Case: CIR vs Reyes

taxpayers must be informed in writing of the law and the

facts upon which a tax assessment is based.

Case: Reyes vs Almanzor

It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly

on all persons under similar circumstances or that all

persons must be treated in the same manner, the

conditions not being different both in the privileges

conferred and the liabilities imposed.

EMINENT DOMAIN

Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to

appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public

welfare.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without

just compensation. (Art III)

The due process and equal protection clauses act as additional

safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental

power.

The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in

nature. It is firmly settled, however, that such power may be validly

delegated to local government units, other public entities and public

utilities, although the scope of this delegated legislative power is

necessarily narrower than that of the delegating authority and may

only be exercised in strict compliance with the terms of the

delegating law.

Who can exercise this power of Eminent Domain?

1. The National Government

2. Congress

3. The Executive, pursuant to legislation

4. LGUs, pursuant to an ordinance

5. Public utilities, as may be delegated by law



DISTINCTIONS OF THE POWERS

1. Police Power and Taxation- The conservative and pivotal

distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose

for which the charge is made.

Case: Chevron Philippines vs Bases Conversion Development

Authority

In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police

power, the determining factor is the purpose of the

implemented measure. If the purpose is primarily to raise

revenue, then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure

results in some form of regulation. On the other hand, if the

purpose is primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation

and an exercise of the police power of the state, even though

incidentally, revenue is generated. The conservative and pivotal

distinction between these two (2) powers rests in the purpose

for which the charge is made.

If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is

merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the

primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does

not make the imposition a tax

2. Police Power and Eminent Domain

In the exercise of police power, there is a restriction of property

interest to promote public welfare or interest which involves no

compensable taking. When the power of eminent domain, however,

is exercised, property interest is appropriated and applied to some

public purpose, necessitating compensation therefor.

Case: OSG vs Ayala Land

The Court finds, however, that in totally prohibiting

respondents from collecting parking fees from the public for the

use of the mall parking facilities, the State would be acting

beyond the bounds of police power.

Police power does not involve the taking or confiscation of

property, with the exception of a few cases where there is a

necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for

the purpose of protecting peace and order and of promoting the

general welfare; for instance, the confiscation of an illegally

possessed article, such as opium and firearms.

When there is a taking or confiscation of private property

for public use, the State is no longer exercising police power, but

another of its inherent powers, namely, eminent domain.

Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly acquire private

lands intended for public use upon payment of just

compensation to the owner.

Such is already an excessive intrusion into the property

rights of respondents. Not only are they being deprived of the

right to use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are

further prohibited from profiting from its use or even just

recovering therefrom the expenses for the maintenance and

operation of the required parking facilities.

In conclusion, the total prohibition against the collection by

respondents of parking fees from persons who use the mall

parking facilities has no basis in the National Building Code or

its IRR. The State also cannot impose the same prohibition by

generally invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts

to a taking of respondents property without payment of just

compensation.

3. Taxation and Eminent Domain- In taxation, what is taken

is money. While anything may be expropriated, it is

akward to take money and be justly compensated with the

same.

C. Due Process In General

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.

Section 1 protects life liberty and property:

a. LIFE: Includes the right to be alive, or security against physical

harm, as well as the right to a good life

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,

liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are

essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of

democracy. (Art II)

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and

guarantees full respect for human rights. (Art II)

Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that

will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the

people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social

services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an

improved quality of life for all. (Art II)

It also includes the sanctity of family life and the right of the unborn.

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and

shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous

social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother

and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and

primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for

civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall

receive the support of the Government. (Art II)



b. PROPERTY:

Includes all kinds of property as found in the Civil Code, including

vested rights.

It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is

well-recognized in this jurisdiction that one's employment,

profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and the

wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right

is considered to be property within the protection of a

constitutional guaranty of due process of law.

c. LIBERTY : This may refer to autonomy.

Case: Philippine Blooming Mills vs Philippine Blooming

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression

and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to

the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and

such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not

permitting dubious intrusions.

By "due process of law" we mean "a law which hears before it

condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only

after trial. ...

"Due process of law" contemplates notice and opportunity to

be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or

property"

Aspects of Due Process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive

Due Process

Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the

government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty,

or property. Procedural due process concerns itself with

government action adhering to the established process when it

makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the

form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing.

Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by

the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has

sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or

property.

REQUISITES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

1. For Judicial Proceedings (Non-criminal cases)

Due process of law implies that there must be

a. A court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and

determine the matter before it;

b. That jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired;

i. JURISDICTION simply means the power of

the court to hear try and decide a case. In its

complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not

only the powers to hear and decide a case,

but also the power to enforce the judgment.

c. That the defendant shall have an opportunity to be

heard; and

d. Judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing.

2. In administrative proceedings (Cardinal Primary Rights)

a. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to

present one's case and submit evidence in support

thereof;

i. Case: SURNECO vs ERC

"To be heard" does not mean verbal

argumentation alone inasmuch as one may

be heard just as effectively through written

explanations, submissions or pleadings.

Therefore, while the phrase "ample

opportunity to be heard" may in fact include

an actual hearing, it is not limited to a

formal hearing only.

Administrative due process simply requires

an opportunity to explain ones side or to

seek reconsideration of the action or ruling

complained of. It means being given the

opportunity to be heard before judgment,

and for this purpose, a formal trial-type

hearing is not even essential. It is enough

that the parties are given a fair and

reasonable chance to demonstrate their

respective positions and to present evidence

in support thereof.

b. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

c. The decision must have something to support itself;

d. The evidence must be substantial;

e. The decision must be rendered on the evidence

presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the

record and disclosed to the parties affected.

f. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on

its or his own independent consideration of the law

and facts of the controversy and not simply accept

the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.

g. The board or body should, in all controversial

questions, render its decision in such a manner that

the parties to the proceeding can know the various

issues involved, and the reason for the decision

rendered.



3. In Labor Cases

Article 277 of the Labor Code provides: a written notice

containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall

afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and defend

himself with the assistance of his representative if he so

desires

For termination of employment based on just causes as defined

in Article 282 of the Labor Code:

(i) A written notice served on the employee specifying the

ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee

reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side.

(ii) A hearing or conference during which the employee

concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires, is

given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his

evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.

(iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee,

indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances,

grounds have been established to justify his termination.

Case: Placido vs NLRC

It should not be taken to mean, however, that holding an

actual hearing or conference is a condition sine qua non for

compliance with the due process requirement in case of

termination of employment

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be

heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an

opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek

a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the

opportunity to be heard, hence, a party cannot feign denial

of due process where he had been afforded the

opportunity to present his side. A formal or trial type

hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to

due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where

the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to

explain their side of the controversy.

4. In School Disciplinary Proceedings

There are minimum standards which must be met to

satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these

are, that

1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature

and cause of any accusation against them;

2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against

them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired;

(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;

(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their

own behalf; and

(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the

investigating committee or official designated by the

school authorities to hear and decide the case.

REQUISITES FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

a. The interests of the public generally as distinguished from

those of a particular class requires the interference by the

government

b. The means employed are reasonably for the

accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive

upon individuals

*Is Publication essential in due process?

Case: Republic vs Pilipinas Shell

publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including

administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement

existing laws, attain binding force and effect

Case: Tanada vs Tuvera

Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis

for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat."

Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun

instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets.

Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be

recognized as binding unless their existence and contents are

confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full

disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law

is like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut unless

the naked blade is drawn.

a. Void for Vagueness Doctrine- holds that a law is facially

invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily

guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

b. Overbreadth Analysis- challengers to government action

are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties.

Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of

speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute

needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed

rights.



Case: Sps. Romualdez vs COMELEC

In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and

vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their

faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in

American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to

do service when what is involved is a criminal statute.

To this date, the Court has not declared any penal law

unconstitutional on the ground of ambiguity." While mentioned

in passing in some cases, the void-for-vagueness concept has

yet to find direct application in our jurisdiction.

Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would

result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have

even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a

departure from the usual requirement of "actual case and

controversy" and permit decisions to be made in a sterile

abstract context having no factual concreteness.

For this reason, generally disfavored is an on-its-face

invalidation of statutes, described as a "manifestly strong

medicine" to be employed "sparingly and only as a last resort."

In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its

provisions that have allegedly been violated must be examined

in the light of the conduct with which the defendant has been

charged.

The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free

speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be

facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes

be subjected to a facial challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a

facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the prosecution

of crimes maybe hampered. No prosecution would be possible.

Case: People vs Siton

However, in exercising its power to declare what acts constitute

a crime, the legislature must inform the citizen with reasonable

precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may have a

certain understandable rule of conduct and know what acts it is

his duty to avoid. This requirement has come to be known as

the void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that "a statute

which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so

vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess

at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first

essential of due process of law."

Case: Southern Hemisphere vs Anti-terrorism Council

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and

to one which is overbroad because of possible" chilling effect"

upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes

regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent

construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the

statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all

society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to

justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no

requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate

that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn

with narrow specificity."

This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal

statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their

very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason

alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws

against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the

law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.

The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special

application only to free speech cases.

For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been

described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed

"sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally disfavored.

In determining the constitutionality of a statute, therefore, its

provisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case

must be examined in the light of the conduct with which the

defendant is charged.

D. Due Process and Police Power

Case: Ermita-Malate Hotel vs City Mayor of Manila

Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its face the

ordinance is fatally defective as being repugnant to the due

process clause of the Constitution. The mantle of protection

associated with the due process guaranty does not cover

petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power

measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is

immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on

conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold

otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of

police power which has been properly characterized as the most

essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending

as it does "to all the great public needs."

Case: White Light vs City of Manila

The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of

decisions including has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it

must not only be within the corporate powers of the local

government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure

prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following

substantive requirements:



(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;

(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;

(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;

(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;

(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and

(6) must not be unreasonable.

Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been

purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its

comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough

room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions

warrant.

The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not

eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex,

prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are

unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police

power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not

sanctify any and all means for their achievement.

The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary

governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and

property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a

protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even

corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty

insofar as their property is concerned.

That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate

depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative

business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the

legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must

appear that

a. the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require an interference with private

rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of

private rights.

b. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the

accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights

can work.

c. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between

the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its

accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the

public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private

property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.

Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure

shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.

The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact

already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by

applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing

the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active

police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So

would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations

penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would

have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and

other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the

Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the

whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit

activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact

collect "wash rates" from their clientele by charging their

customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even

apartments.

E. Due Process and Eminent Domain

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without

just compensation.

Case: OSG vs Ayala Land

Although in the present case, title to and/or possession of the

parking facilities remain/s with respondents, the prohibition

against their collection of parking fees from the public, for the

use of said facilities, is already tantamount to a taking or

confiscation of their properties. The State is not only requiring

that respondents devote a portion of the latters properties for

use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the

public access to said parking spaces for free. Such is already an

excessive intrusion into the property rights of respondents. Not

only are they being deprived of the right to use a portion of

their properties as they wish, they are further prohibited from

profiting from its use or even just recovering therefrom the

expenses for the maintenance and operation of the required

parking facilities.

The Local Government Code provides that a local government unit

may,

a. through its chief executive and

b. acting pursuant to an ordinance,

exercise the power of eminent domain;



a. for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor

and the landless,

b. upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of

the Constitution and pertinent laws:

Provided, however,

a. That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a

valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and

such offer was not accepted:

b. That the local government unit may immediately take possession

of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and

upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen

percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the

current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated.

c. That the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be

determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value of

the property.

Two stages of exporppriation proceedings

1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the

power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the

context of the facts involved in the suit.

This ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, of

condemnation [or order of expropriation] declaring that

the plaintiff has the lawful right to take the property

sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose

described in the complaint, upon the payment of just

compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing

of the complaint; and

2. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the

property sought to be taken.

Case: Sps. Ortega vs City of Cebu

Expropriation proceedings speak of two (2) stages, i.e.:

1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to

exercise the power of eminent domain and the

propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts

involved in the suit.

2. Determination by the court of the just compensation

for the property sought to be taken.

The determination of "just compensation" in eminent

domain cases is a judicial function. The executive

department or the legislature may make the initial

determinations but when a party claims a violation of the

guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may

not be taken for public use without just compensation, no

statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its

own determination shall prevail over the courts findings.

Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into

the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.

Case: Sps. Abad vs Fil-Homes Realty

Expropriation of lands consists of two stages:

The first is concerned with the determination of the

authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent

domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of

the facts involved in the suit.

The second phase of the eminent domain action is

concerned with the determination by the court of "the just

compensation for the property sought to be taken.

It is only upon the completion of these two stages that

expropriation is said to have been completed. The process

is not complete until payment of just compensation.

Accordingly, the issuance of the writ of possession in this

case does not write finis to the expropriation proceedings.

To effectuate the transfer of ownership, it is necessary to

pay the property owners the final just compensation.

F. Equal Protection

The equality it guarantees is legal equality, or as it is usually put,

the equality of all persons before the law. The principle of the

requirement of equal protection of law applies to all persons

similarly situated.

Case: Pichay vs Office of the Deputy Exec. Sec

... in the application of the law, "all persons or things

similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights

conferred and responsibilities imposed." The equal

protection clause, however, is not absolute but subject to

reasonable classification so that aggrupations bearing

substantial distinctions may be treated differently from

each other.

1. Economic Equality

a. FREE ACCESS:

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. (Art III)



b. LEGAL AID

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers: xxx

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection

and enforcement of constitutional rights,

pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,

the admission to the practice of law, the

integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-

privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified

and inexpensive procedure for the speedy

disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all

courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,

increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of

procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial

bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved

by the Supreme Court. (Art VIII)

c. MARINE RESOURCES

Section 2. xxx

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale

utilization of natural resources by Filipino

citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with

priority to subsistence fishermen and fish

workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. xxx

(ArtXII)

d. NATIONALIZATION

Section 10. The Congress shall, upon

recommendation of the economic and planning

agency, when the national interest dictates,

reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to

corporations or associations at least sixty per

centum of whose capital is owned by such

citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress

may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The

Congress shall enact measures that will

encourage the formation and operation of

enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by

Filipinos.

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions

covering the national economy and patrimony,

the State shall give preference to qualified

Filipinos.

The State shall regulate and exercise authority

over foreign investments within its national

jurisdiction and in accordance with its national

goals and priorities. (Art XII)

e. SOCIAL JUSTICE-

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority

to the enactment of measures that protect and

enhance the right of all the people to human

dignity, reduce social, economic, and political

inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by

equitably diffusing wealth and political power for

the common good. (Art XIII)

f. PROTECTION TO LABOR

Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to

labor, local and overseas, organized and

unorganized, and promote full employment and

equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-

organization, collective bargaining and

negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,

including the right to strike in accordance with

law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure,

humane conditions of work, and a living wage.

They shall also participate in policy and decision-

making processes affecting their rights and

benefits as may be provided by law. (Art. XIII)

2. Political Equality

a. DISCRIMINATION-

Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office

shall be free from any form of harassment and

discrimination. (Art IX)

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to

the enactment of measures that protect and enhance

the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce

social, economic, and political inequalities, and

remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing

wealth and political power for the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,

ownership, use, and disposition of property and its

increments. (Art XIII)

b. Case: Dumlao vs COMELEC

The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of

the laws is subject to rational classification. If the

groupings are based on reasonable and real

differentiations, one class can be treated and

regulated differently from another class.

In fine, it bears reiteration that the equal protection

clause does not forbid all legal classification. What is



proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and

unreasonable.

The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of

younger blood in local governments. The classification

in question being pursuant to that purpose, it cannot

be considered invalid "even it at times, it may be

susceptible to the objection that it is marred by

theoretical inconsistencies"

Case: Quinto vs COMELEC

The equal protection of the law clause in the

Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to

reasonable classification. If the groupings are

characterized by substantial distinctions that make

real differences, one class may be treated and

regulated differently from the other.

Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective

officials and appointive officials. The former occupy

their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate.

They are elected to an office for a definite term and

may be removed therefrom only upon stringent

conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials

hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto

by an appointing authority.

Another substantial distinction between the two sets

of officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I,

Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the

Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No.

292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in

the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging

in any partisan political activity or take (sic) part in

any election except to vote. Under the same provision,

elective officials, or officers or employees holding

political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to

take part in political and electoral activities.

Since the classification justifying Section 14 of Rep.

Act No. 9006, i.e., elected officials vis--vis appointive

officials, is anchored upon material and significant

distinctions and all the persons belonging under the

same classification are similarly treated, the equal

protection clause of the Constitution is, thus, not

infringed.

Case: Ang Ladlad vs COMELEC

Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law

neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a

suspect class, we will uphold the classification as long

as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate

government end.

No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or

expressions or parties about homosexual behavior.

Indeed, even if we were to assume that public opinion

is as the COMELEC describes it, the asserted state

interest here that is, moral disapproval of an

unpopular minority is not a legitimate state interest

that is sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under

the equal protection clause.

Hence, laws of general application should apply with

equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate

in the party-list system on the same basis as other

marginalized and under-represented sectors.

3. Social Equality

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the

enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right

of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,

economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural

inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power

for the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,

ownership, use, and disposition of property and its

increments. (Art XIII)

Case: Reyes vs NHA

Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land

for slum clearance and urban development is for a public

purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private

homeowners, commercials firms, entertainment and

service companies, and other private concerns.

Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to

undertake, for the common good and in cooperation with

the private sector, a continuing program of urban land

reform and housing which will make at affordable cost

decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and

homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas.

The expropriation of private property for the purpose of

socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in

furtherance of the social justice provision under Section 1,

Article XIII of the Constitution.



4. Other Cases on Equal Protection

Case: Trillanes vs Pimentel

Petitioner now pleads for the same liberal treatment

accorded certain detention prisoners who have also been

charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President

Joseph Estrada and former Governor Nur Misuari who

were allowed to attend "social functions." Finding no

rhyme and reason in the denial of the more serious request

to perform the duties of a Senator, petitioner harps on an

alleged violation of the equal protection clause.

Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from

imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion

of the authorities or upon court orders. That this discretion

was gravely abused, petitioner failed to establish.

In a seeming attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial

court lest it be accused of taking a complete turn-around,

petitioner largely banks on these prior grants to him and

insists on unending concessions and blanket

authorizations.

Case: British American Tobacco vs Camacho

A legislative classification that is reasonable does not

offend the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection

of the laws. The classification is considered valid and

reasonable provided that:

(1) it rests on substantial distinctions;

(2) it is germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) it applies, all things being equal, to both present and

future conditions; and

(4) it applies equally to all those belonging to the same

class.

Case: Soriano vs Laguardia

Petitioner faults the MTRCB for denying him his right to the

equal protection of the law, arguing that, owing to the

preventive suspension order, he was unable to answer the

criticisms coming from the INC ministers.

Petitioners position does not persuade. The equal

protection clause demands that "all persons subject to

legislation should be treated alike, under like

circumstances and conditions both in the privileges

conferred and liabilities imposed."

Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself

in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are

not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB.

For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in

their TV programs, use language similar to that which he

used in his own, necessitating the MTRCBs disciplinary

action.

Case: ABAKADA vs Purisima

Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system

of rewards and incentives only to officials and employees

of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional

guarantee of equal protection.

Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is

equality under the same conditions and among persons

similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not

similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based

on substantial differences in relation to the object to be

accomplished. When things or persons are different in fact

or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently.

Equality of operation of statutes does not mean

indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on

persons according to the circumstances surrounding them.

It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The

Constitution does not require that things which are

different in fact be treated in law as though they were the

same.

Hence, legislative classification may in many cases properly

rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection

guaranty does not preclude the legislature from

recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is

addressed to evils as they may appear.

Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They

principally perform the special function of being the

instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of

its great inherent functions taxation. Indubitably, such

substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to

the purpose of the law.



Case: Chamber of Real Estate vs Sec. Romulo

Again, we disagree. The equal protection clause under the

Constitution means that "no person or class of persons

shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is

enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place

and in like circumstances." Stated differently, all persons

belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike.

The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable

classifications for purposes of taxation. Inequalities which

result from a singling out of one particular class for

taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional

limitation. The real estate industry is, by itself, a class and

can be validly treated differently from other business

enterprises.

Petitioner, in insisting that its industry should be treated

similarly as manufacturing enterprises, fails to realize that

what distinguishes the real estate business from other

manufacturing enterprises, for purposes of the imposition

of the CWT, is not their production processes but the prices

of their goods sold and the number of transactions

involved. The income from the sale of a real property is

bigger and its frequency of transaction limited, making it

less cumbersome for the parties to comply with the

withholding tax scheme.

On the other hand, each manufacturing enterprise may

have tens of thousands of transactions with several

thousand customers every month involving both minimal

and substantial amounts. To require the customers of

manufacturing enterprises, at present, to withhold the

taxes on each of their transactions with their tens or

hundreds of suppliers may result in an inefficient and

unmanageable system of taxation and may well defeat the

purpose of the withholding tax system.

Case: Biraogo vs PTC

Concept of the Equal Protection Clause: The equal

protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due

process, as every unfair discrimination offends the

requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied

in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more

specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or

hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general

may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause.

But if the particular act assailed partakes of an

unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to

cut it down is the equal protection clause.

Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1

should be struck down as violative of the equal protection

clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth

commission is to investigate and find out the truth

"concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption

during the previous administration" only. The intent to

single out the previous administration is plain, patent and

manifest.

In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo

administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a

class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own.

Not to include past administrations similarly situated

constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause

cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly

reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for

vindictiveness and selective retribution.

The Court is not convinced. Although Section 17 allows the

President the discretion to expand the scope of

investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts of graft

and corruption committed in other past administrations, it

does not guarantee that they would be covered in the

future. Such expanded mandate of the commission will still

depend on the whim and caprice of the President. If he

would decide not to include them, the section would then

be meaningless. This will only fortify the fears of the

petitioners that the Executive Order No. 1 was "crafted to

tailor-fit the prosecution of officials and personalities of

the Arroyo administration."

Case: BOCEA vs Reyes

Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things

similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner,

both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure

every person within a states jurisdiction against

intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether

occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its

improper execution through the states duly constituted

authorities. In other words, the concept of equal justice

under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and

it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on

differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate

governmental objective.

Case: Commissioner of Customs vs Hypermix Feeds

In summary, petitioners violated respondents right to due

process in the issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they failed

to observe the requirements under the Revised

Administrative Code. Petitioners likewise violated



respondents right to equal protection of laws when they

provided for an unreasonable classification in the

application of the regulation.

II. REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR PROCEDURE

A. Arrests, searches and Seizures, Privacy of

Communications

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. (Art III)

Section 3. 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.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section

shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Art III)

1. Requirements for Search Warrants

Case: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Againts Atty. Morales

The right against unreasonable search and seizure in turn is at

the top of the hierarchy of rights, next only to, if not on the

same plane as, the right to life, liberty and property, which is

protected by the due process clause. This is as it should be for,

as stressed by a couple of noted freedom advocates, the right to

personal security which, along with the right to privacy, is the

foundation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure

"includes the right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life

while existing."

RULE 126, Rules of Court

Search and Seizure

Section 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is an order in

writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by

a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search

for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed.

An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed.

b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within

the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the

commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial

region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the

application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action

is pending.

Section 3. Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may

be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense;

or

(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an

offense.

Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant

shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one

specific offense 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in

the Philippines.

Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must,

before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of

searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally

known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,

together with the affidavits submitted.

Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. If the judge is

satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based

or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall

issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed

by these Rules.

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. The

officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after

giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer

or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or

anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any

person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence

of two witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any other

premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant

thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter,

two



witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same

locality.

Section 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it

be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the

property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in

which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time

of the day or night.

Section 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be

valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void.

Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer seizing

property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same

to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search

and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in

the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and

discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in

which he found the seized property.

Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court;

return and proceedings thereon.

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge

who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly

verified under oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing

judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall

summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require

him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made,

the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been

complained with and shall require that the property seized be

delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof

has been complied with.

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the

custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein

the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully

arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which

may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an

offense without a search warrant.

Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress

evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant

and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and

acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If

no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in

and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if

such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is

subsequent filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the

latter court.

What is a Search Warrant? - A search warrant is an order in writing

issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a

judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for

personal property described therein and bring it before the court.2

Where is the application filed? An application for search warrant

shall be filed with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed.

b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within

the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of

the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the

judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the

application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action

is pending.3

What are the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant? - A

search warrant shall not issue except

a. upon probable cause

b. in connection with one specific offense

c. (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

things to be seized which may be anywhere in the

Philippines

The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in

the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under

oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts

personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn

statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

Particularly describing the place to be searched

Case: People vs Tuan

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the

officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,

ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from

other places in the community. A designation or description that

points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all

others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,

satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.



Upon Probable Cause

Case: People vs Mamaril

Probable cause means such facts and circumstances which

would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to

believe that an offense has been committed and that the

objects sought in connection with the offense are in the

place sought to be searched.

It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly

performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A

magistrates determination of a probable cause for the

issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference

by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis

for that determination.

Case: Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue

Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition

for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons

supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a

cautious man to believe that his action and the means

taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Probable

cause requires facts and circumstances that would lead a

reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has

been committed and that the objects sought in connection

with that offense are in the place to be searched.

As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is

concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral

certainty.

The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested in

the trial judges in the exercise of their judicial functions. A

finding of probable cause, which would merit the issuance

of a search warrant, needs only to rest on evidence

showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been

committed and that it was committed by the accused.

As to ownership of the property seized

Case: Ty vs De Jemil

The law does not require that the property to be seized

should be owned by the person against whom the search

warrants is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no

consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against

whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of

the property sought to be seized. Petitioners cannot deny

that the seized LPG cylinders were in the possession of

Omni, found as they were inside the Omni compound.

Search of Files on a Computer

Case: Pollo vs Constantino-David

Moreover, even assuming arguendo, in the absence of

allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual

circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective

expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, such is

negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of

office computers (Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002

"Computer Use Policy (CUP)", to wit

1. The Computer Resources are the property of

the Civil Service Commission and may be used

only for legitimate business purposes.

xxx

5. Waiver of privacy rights. Users expressly waive

any right to privacy in anything they create,

store, send, or receive on the computer through

the Internet or any other computer network.

Users understand that the CSC may use human

or automated means to monitor the use of its

Computer Resources.

xxx 6. Non-exclusivity of Computer Resources. A

computer resource is not a personal property or

for the exclusive use of a User to whom a

memorandum of receipt (MR) has been issued. It

can be shared or operated by other users.

However, he is accountable therefor and must

insure its care and maintenance.

xxx

13. Passwords do not imply privacy. Use of

passwords to gain access to the computer system

or to encode particular files or messages does

not imply that Users have an expectation of

privacy in the material they create or receive on

the computer system.

The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its

employees on notice that they have no expectation of

privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on

the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the

use of the computer resources using both automated or

human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections

may be done to ensure that the computer resources were

used only for such legitimate business purposes.



A search by a government employer of an employees

office is justified at inception when there are reasonable

grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the

employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

What is the duration of the validity of the search warrant? - A search

warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it

shall be void.

2. Warrantless Searches

a. Search of Moving Vehicles:

Case: Aniag vs COMELEC

Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless

search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the

seizure of evidence in plain view, as well as the search

conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared

are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is

not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is

neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,

and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual

search.

An extensive search (of the vehicle without warrant could only

be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had

reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that

either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find

the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of

a crime in the vehicle to be searched.

There was no evidence to show that the policemen were

impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them

to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the

description furnished by their informant were engaged in

gunrunning, transporting firearms or in organizing special strike

forces. Nor, as adverted to earlier, was there any indication

from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have

triggered the suspicion of the policemen. Absent such justifying

circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of

petitioner and Arellano, the search could not be valid.

In the face of fourteen (14) armed policemen conducting the

operation, driver Arellano being alone and a mere employee of

petitioner could not have marshalled the strength and the

courage to protest against the extensive search conducted in

the vehicle. In such scenario, the "implied acquiescence," if

there was any, could not be more than a mere passive

conformity on Arellano's part to the search, and "consent" given

under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent

within the purview of the constitutional guaranty.

Case: Epie vs Ulat-Marredo

At around 4:00 p.m. of the same day, the PNP operatives

spotted the jeepney heading toward La Trinidad. They flagged it

down but it did not stop. Hence, they chased the vehicle up to

Shilan, La Trinidad where it finally halted.

in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from

proceeding with their inspection, there exists probable cause to

justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that

the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or

that the vehicle contained objects which were instruments of

some offense.

Case: People vs Tuazon

Rationale for the exemption of searches of moving vehicles:

[T]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years

been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the

object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so

considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place,

things and persons to be searched must be described to the

satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders

on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use

of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one

place to another with impunity. We might add that a

warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground

that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the

vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in

which the warrant must be sought."

In recognition of the possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that

at all times, it is required that probable cause exist in order to

justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.

In recognition of the possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that

at all times, it is required that probable cause exist in order to

justify the warrantless search of a vehicle.

Case: People vs Mariacos

Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the

government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation

of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares

furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable

cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.

A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is

made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile structure.

But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is

conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor

vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or

jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.



b. When the search is merely incidental to a valid arrest

Rule 113, Sec. 13. A person lawfully arrested may be searched

for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used

or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a

search warrant.

Case: People vs Agulay

Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making

the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him

inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellants claim is

devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an

arrest made after an entrapment operation does not

require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid

"warrantless arrest," in line with the provisions of Rule 113,

Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court.

Considering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation

is beyond question, the subsequent warrantless arrest and

warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. The

search, clearly being incident to a lawful arrest, needed no

warrant for its validity.

Case: Ching vs People

Once again this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is

a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law

at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It

is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of

trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of

their nefarious activities.

Having established that the buy-bust operation is factual

and legitimate, the subsequent warrantless arrest of Ching

and as well as the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs

was permissible.

Case: People vs Racho

As appellant was about to board a tricycle, the team

approached him and invited him to the police station on

suspicion of carrying shabu. Appellant immediately denied

the accusation, but as he pulled out his hands from his

pants pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which,

when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the

suspected drug.

Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a

lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search;

generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a

search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can

precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to

make the arrest at the outset of the search. Thus, given the

factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether

the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant.

Clearly, what prompted the police to apprehend appellant,

even without a warrant, was the tip given by the informant

that appellant would arrive in Baler, Aurora carrying

shabu.

The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that "reliable

information" alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless

arrest. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused

perform some overt act that would indicate that he has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to

commit an offense.

We required the showing of some overt act indicative of

the criminal design.

As in the above cases, appellant herein was not

committing a crime in the presence of the police officers.

Neither did the arresting officers have personal knowledge

of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had

committed, was committing, or about to commit an

offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant had just

alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting for a

tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner

that would engender a reasonable ground for the police

officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or

intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the

information given by the informant, appellant would not

have been apprehended and no search would have been

made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not

have been confiscated.

Clearly, the police had ample opportunity to apply for a

warrant.

Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the

poisonous tree," hence, the confiscated item is

inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section

3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, "any evidence obtained in

violation of this or the preceding section shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Case: People vs Araneta

A search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed

because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were

caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling,

dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely

legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and search, them on

the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode



of apprehending drug pushers. A buy-bust operation is a

form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted

to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the

lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous

weapons or anything which may have been used or

constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a

search warrant.

Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate,

it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant

was likewise not needed to conduct it.

Case: Ong vs People

We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for

the particular reasons alleged.

First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was

flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was

not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested. Under

R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the

general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not

the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the

drivers license of the latter.

Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search

that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

c. Evidence in plain view

The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites

concur:

(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence

has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position

from which he can view a particular area;

(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is

inadvertent; and

(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item

he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or

otherwise subject to seizure.

Case: Abenes vs CA

The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following

requisites concur:

(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence

has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position

from which he can view a particular area;

(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is

inadvertent; and

(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item

he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or

otherwise subject to seizure.

All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant

case. The law enforcement officers lawfully made an initial

intrusion because of the enforcement of the Gun Ban and

were properly in a position from which they particularly

viewed the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, the

policemen came inadvertently across a piece of evidence

incriminating the petitioner where they saw the gun tucked

into his waist. The gun was in plain view and discovered

inadvertently when the petitioner alighted from the

vehicle.

Case: Esquillo vs People

Recall that the police officers were on a surveillance

operation as part of their law enforcement efforts. When

PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet

containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette

case, it was in his plain view. Given his training as a law

enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his part to be

drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner

reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself

as a police officer and inquired about the contents of the

plastic sachet all th

constitutional law 2 prelims condensed notes

Documents