Atty. Loanzon- Consti Law Ii January 2017.doc

Transcript

DE LA SALL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Constitutional Constitution all Law II Constitutiona THE BILL OF RIGHTS Secon Se!este" #anua"$ %&'( Att$) Victo"ia V) Loan*on Cou"se O+,ecti-es. At t/e en o0 t/e cou"se1 t/e stuents will +e a+le. 1. To have an appreciation of the relationship of the state and its people. 2. To understand the concept of due process and its application. 3. To know the history of the Bill of Rights and how the Constitution protects the people against possible abuses of the government. . To understand the inherent powers of government and the interplay of such powers in the enshrined powers of the people under the Bill of Rights. !. To appreciate the constitutionally protected rights of the people as the "upreme Court applies and interprets such rights in assigned cases. I) HISTORY AND 2UR2OSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (' Constitution Constitution A) Conce3t o0 So-e"ei4n Will # $reamble %rt. &&' "ections 1 and 3' %rt (' B) T/e Conce Conce3t 3t o0 Se3a"a Se3a"atio tion n o0 2owe"s 2owe"s and the the Three Three Branches Branches of )overnment )overnment## %rt.(&' (&& and (&&&' Constitution C) De0i De0ini niti tion on an 2u"3 2u"3os osee  of the Bill of Rights# protection of guaranteed rights to liberty' property and other freedoms. *"ection 1' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ ,The Bill Bill of Rights Rights governs governs the relations relationship hip between between the T/ee Bill T/ Bill o0 Ri4/ Ri4/ts ts.. ,The individual and the state. &ts concern is not the relation between individuals' between a  private individual and other individuals. -hat the Bill of Rights does is to declare some some forbid forbidden den ones in the private private sphere sphere inacce inaccessib ssible le to any power power holder./ holder./ 0 People  People v. Marti (1991) (1991) &t is selfeecuting. 0Gamboa 0Gamboa v. Teves Teves (2011 (20 11))  &t also imposes safeguards imposes safeguards against  against violations by the government' by individuals' or by groups of individuals. %rticle &&& of the Constitution protects the following person4s fundamental person4s  fundamental civil and   political rights *1+ !ivil rights 5 rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citienship in a state or community. community. *2+ Political *2+  Political rights 5 rights that pertain to an individual6s citienship vis7vis the management of the government. *3+ "ocial "ocial and economic rights 5 rights  5 rights which are intended to insure the wellbeing and economic security of the individual. *+ #ights *+ #ights of the accused  5  5 civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of any crime.  $uman rights have a primac% over propert% rights. The rights of free epression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of  libert%& e'ualit% and securit% 8against securit%  8against the assaults of opportunism' the epediency of  the passing hour' the erosion of small encroachments' and the scorn and derision of  those those who have have no patien patience ce with with general general princi principle ples./0 s./0 Philippine  Philippine looming Mills  mplo%ees *rgani+ation *rgani+ation v. Philippine looming Mills !o.& ,nc. ,nc. (19-) (19-)  1 | P a g e T/e Bill o0 Ri4/ts se"-es 5 *1+ To preserve preserve democratic ideals. *2+ To safeguard fundamental rights. *3+ To promote promote the happiness of an a n individual. The Bill Bill of Righ Rights ts cann cannot ot be invo invoke ked d agai agains nstt acts acts of priv privat atee Gene"al Gene "al Rule# The individuals. The e9ual protection erects no shield against private conduct' however  discriminatory or wrongful. 0/rasueg 0 /rasuegui ui v. P P (200)  E6ce3tion to t/e Rule. The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court against a private party. * 3ulueta  3ulueta v. !.. & 1994) #uicial Stana"s o0 Re-iew une" t/e Bill o0 Ri4/ts This test test is applicab applicable le for economic& propert%& commercial  ') RATIONAL BASIS TEST. This legislation. legislation. 05hite 05hite ight !orporation v. !it% of Manila (2009) (2009)  2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST. This This re9uir re9uires es the govern governmen mentt to show an overriding or  compelling government interest  so great great that that it :usti :ustifi fies es the the limi limitat tatio ion n of  fundamental  constitutional rights. rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the law makes the classification necessary. 7) INTER8EDIATE SCRUTINY TEST. % third third standa standard' rd' denomi denominat nated ed as height heightene ened d or  imme immedia diate te scrut scrutin iny y' was was late laterr adop adopte ted d by the the ;.". ;.". "upr "uprem emee Cour Courtt for for eval evalua uati ting ng classi classifi ficat catio ions ns based based on  gender   an and legitimac%. legitimac%. -hil -hilee the the test test may have have firs firstt been been articulated in e9ual protection analysis' it has in the ;nited "tates since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. 05hite 05hite ight !orporation v. !it% of Manila (2009) (2009)  VOID5FOR5VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE comprehensible standards standards that men of  VOID FOR  VAGUENESS. %n act is vague when it lacks comprehensible common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. On t/e 9uestion o0 t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e Anti5Te""o"is! Law an t/e c"eation o0  t/e Anti5Te Anti5Te""o"is! Council# % statute statute establi establishi shing ng a crimina criminall offens offensee must must define define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. % statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. The statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects# *1+ &t violates violates due process process for failure failure to accord persons' especially especially the parties parties targeted targeted by it'  fair notice of notice of what conduct to avoid< *2+ &t leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary fleing of the )overnment muscle. 0"outhern 0 "outhern $emisphere v. nti6Terrorism !ouncil (2010) (2010)  On t/e 9uestion o0 t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e 2lune" Law # ,0This doctrine can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face' i.e.' that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining wheth whether er a crim crimin inal al statu statute te is void void for for unce uncert rtai ainty nty is whet whethe herr the the lang langua uage ge conv convey eyss a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. &t must be stressed' however' that the vagueness doctrine merely re9uires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld 5 not absolute precision or mathematical eactitude./ 0 strada 0 strada v. "andiganba%ad  OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE The overbreadth doctrine decrees that 8a governmental purpose may not be achieved by mean meanss whic which h sweep sweep unne unneces cessar sarily ily broa broadl dly y and and ther thereby eby inva invade de the the area area of prot protect ected ed freedoms.8 0"outhern 0"outhern $emisphere& supra 2 | P a g e General Rule (oidforvagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are intended to discourage citiens from committing the prohibited acts.  7ception "aid doctrines apply to penal statutes when *1+ The statute is challenged as applied8 or  *2+ The statute involves free speech. * #ationale "tatute may be facially challenged in order  to counter the ,chilling effect/ of the same.+ 0 isini v. "ec. of :ustice (201;)' on t/e constitutionalit$ o0 t/e C$+e"c"i!e Law: 1. He"!ano Oil 8anu0actu"in4 ; Su4a" Co"3o"ation -) Toll Re4ulato"$ Boa"1 (<% SCRA 7=>1 G)R) No) '?(%=& No-e!+e" %?1 %&'<. &n  Mirasol v. epartment of Public 5or "CR% 31? *2>>@+' the Court has further noted that# % toll way is not an ordinary road. %s a facility designed to promote the fastest access to certain destinations' its use' operation' and maintenance re9uire close regulation. $ublic interest and safety re9uire the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. %s a special kind of road' it is but reasonable that not all forms of transport could use it. @Be"sa!in1 #) 2. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development  (DSWD), 526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senio Citi!en"# A$t 3. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College , 6%3 SCRA 1&1 (2013): the ' $annot $o*+el o i*+o#e e#ti$tion# of the +o+ety ight# of +ivate +e#on# nde the gi#e of e-e$i#e of +oli$e +oe#. &. Aquino v. Municipalit of Mala! A"lan, 737 SCRA 1&5 (201&): a /ayo *ay e-e$i#e addi$atoy +oe# and ode de*olition of a #t$te hi$h $ontavene# an odinan$e in hi# i#di$tion. 5. Ferrer! #r. v. $autista , 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Con#tittion allo# lo$al goven*ent# to ai#e thei on #o$e# of evene t the +ovi#ion of a +li$ #evi$e i# not #e$t to any fo* of ta- i*+o#ition ta-e# on idle land# and #o$iali!ed ho#ing ae valid t ta- on gaage $olle$tion i# invalid. 6. %hilippine &ealth Care %roviders! 'nc. v. Commissioner of 'nternal evenue! 600 SCRA &13 (200%): +ay*ent of do$*entay ta-e# and A4 y ay of de$ien$y a##e##*ent y the R $onta$t# of 8/9 ae not #e$t to S4 and A4. 7. ational %o*er Corporation v. Cit of Ca+anatuan, 737 SCRA 305 (201&): a##e##*ent of fan$hi#e ta- on ;AP9C9R ;AP9C9R i# liale to +ay fan$hi#e ta- to the ' <. %eople v. Marti, 1%3 SCRA 57 (1%%1): the ight again#t illegal #ea$h and #ei!e $annot e invo=ed again#t a +ivate +e#on =) Nu"se"$ Ca"e Co"3o"ation -s) Ace-eo1 (7' SCRA %&1 G)R) No) '&?>' #ul$ 7&1 %&'<. There is double taation when the same tapayer is taed twice when he should be taed only once for the same purpose by the same taing authority within the same  :urisdiction during the same taing period' and the taes are of the same kind or character. @Be"sa!in1 #) D) T/e T/"ee G"eat 2owe"s o0 Go-e"n!ent # $olice $ower' $ower to Ta' $ower to Apropriate as limitations to en:oyment of rights 3 | P a g e  #ead annotations found in political> constitutional la= boo *The Hocal )overnment Code+' the power has been be delegated to H);s. Ether government entities through the charters creating them also en:oy the right to epropriate. 0 Manapat v. ! (200-)  Requisites for e*ercise of the power of eminent #omain *1+ $rivate property *2+ )enuine necessity *3+ Ior public purpose *+ $ayment of :ust compensation *!+ Due process 0 Manapat v. ! *2>>G+ Ci"cu!stances w/ic/ !a$ wa""ant tain45 -hen the owner is deprived of his proprietar% rights& there is taking of private property. &t may include *1+ Diminution in value< *2+ $revention of ordinary use< and *3+ Deprivation of beneficial use. Cases# 1. $acienda uisita& ,nc. v. Presidential grarian #eform !ouncil ' @G> "CR% 3=2 *2>12+# award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or collectively through a :uridical person< a resolution of an administrative agency has the effect of a law and can be governed by the operative fact doctrine. 2. "ecretar% of the epartment of Public 5or> "CR% 23 *2>13+ and #esolution dated 21 %pril 2>1!' 5 "CR% 5 *).R.  Jo. 1G=33' 21 %pril 2>1!+# where a private property is not entitled to ,:ust compensation/ 3. Mactan6!ebu ,nternational irport uthorit% v. o+ada& "r.' @13 "CR% @1? *2>1>+# limitation on the eercise of power< right of the private property owner  ) #epublic v. $eirs of "aturnino H. orbon' G! "CR% > *2>1!+# Considering that the Court has consistently upheld the primordial importance of public use in epropriation  proceedings' J%$ECER6s reliance on Metropolitan 5ater istrict v. e los ngeles' !! $hil. GG@ *1=31+' was apt and correct. (erily' the retirement of the transmission lines necessarily stripped the epropriation proceedings of the element of public use. To continue with the epropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the pro:ect would result in the rendition of an invalid :udgment in favor of the epropriator due to the absence of the essential element of public use. @Be"sa!in1 #) !. and an< of the Philippines vs. "unta%& 442 "!# 41;& G.#. Io. 1-4 ecember 1;& 2011# The enactments of the Hegislature decreed that the money to be paid to the landowner as :ust compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only from the %grarian Reform Iund. %s such' the liability is not the personal liability of Hand Bank' but its liability only as the administrator of the %RI. &n fact' "ection 1>' Rule 1= of the 2>>3 D%R%B Rules of $rocedure' reiterates that the satisfaction of a :udgment for :ust compensation by writ of eecution should be from the %RI in the custody of Hand Bank. @Be"sa!in1 #) @. Iational Po=er !orporation v. $eirs of Macabang *2>11+# nature of public use< when is a party entitled to :ust compensation despite no apparent physical taking G. 7port Processing 3one uthorit% (no= Philippine 7port 3one uthorit%) vs. Pulido& 4D4 "!# 1D& G.#. Io. 199D ugust 2;& 2011 . Compensation cannot be :ust to the owner in the case of property that is immediately taken unless there is prompt payment' considering that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income. Thus' in addition' the owner is entitled to legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment in order to place the owner in a position 5 | P a g e as good as' but not better than' the position he was in before the taking occurred. @Be"sa!in1 #) ?. po ?ruits !orporation vs. !ourt of ppeals& 40- "!# 200& G.#. Io. 14;19D ecember  ;& 2009 . The taking of property under C%RH is an eercise by the "tate of the power of  eminent domain. % basic limitation on the "tate6s power of eminent domain is the constitutional directive that private property shall not be taken for public use without :ust compensation. Fust compensation refers to the sum e9uivalent to the market value of the  property' broadly described to be the price fied by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition' or the fair value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires to sell. &t is fied at the time of the actual taking by the "tate. Thus' if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having :urisdiction over the case' the final compensation must include interests on its  :ust value' to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. =. vda e *uano vs. #epublic @G.#. Io. 14--0& 2011A &n epropriation' the private owner  is deprived of property against his will< due process ought to be strictly followed. $ublic use as an eminent domain concept' has now ac9uired an epansive meaning to include any use that is of ,usefulness' utility or advantage or what is productive of general  benefit *of the public+. *(elasco' F.+ NOTE t/at. E63"o3"iation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a  private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property< re9uisites' how  :ust compensation is determined< relate to the Bill of Rights. 7) 2owe" o0 Ta6ation De0inition. Ta6ation is the power by which the "tate raises to defray the necessary epenses of the )overnment. &t is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and  property' levied by the "tate by virtue of its sovereignty' for the support of the government and for all public needs. Une" t/e li0e+loo t/eo"$1 ta6es a"e i!3ose 5 *1+ To raise revenue *2+ %s a tool for regulation *3+ To serve as protection of state6s interestKpower to keep alive Sco3e an Li!itations *1+ $ower to ta eists for the general =elfare< should be eercised only for a public purpose. *2+ &mposition might be :ustified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are  private individuals. *3+ Ta should not be confiscatory . &f a ta measure is so unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of property' the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a ta measure must  be eercised with utmost caution' otherwise' the "tate6s power to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed. *+ ;niformity of taation General Rule The power to ta operates with the same force and effect in every place where the sub:ect of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity. E6ce3tion.  The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taation'  provided the re9uisites for valid classification are met. 0*rmoc "ugar v. Treasurer of  *rmoc (194) @> Ta6es !ust +e e9uitable %s a general rule' taes should be apportioned among the people according to their  ability to pay. 6 | P a g e Clai! 0o" Ta6 E6e!3tions Gene"al Rule. Ta6 e6e!3tions a"e 0"owne u3on) T/e"e0o"e1 no law granting any ta eemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a maCorit% of all the Members of  Congress 0"ec. 2 (;)& rt. J,  There is no vested right in a ta eemption 0. Being a mere  statutor% privilege' a ta eemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. 0 #epublic v. !aguioa (2009) E6e!3tions !a$ eit/e" +e constitutional o" statuto"$) !onstitutional e7emptions 0"ec. 2()& rt. J,  Re9uisites# %ctual' Direct and Aclusive ;se by the following# *a+ ducational institutions *b+!haritable institutions *c+ #eligious organi+ations &f statutor%' it has to have been passed by ma:ority of all the members of Congress. 0 "ec. 2 (;)& rt. J,  Case. "om. of +nternal Revenue v. S. ". ,ohnson  Son' +nc .& 09 "!# -. ,n negotiating ta7 treaties& the underl%ing rationale for reducing the ta7 rate is that the Philippines =ill give up a part of the ta7 in the e7pectation that the ta7 given up for this particular investment is not ta7ed b% the other countr%.  +n or#er to eliminate #ou(le ta*ation' a ta* treat& resorts to several metho#s. irst' it sets out the respective rights to ta* of the state of source or situs an# of the state of resi#ence with regar# to certain classes of income or capital. The second method for the elimination of double ta7ation applies =henever the state of  source is given a full or limited right to ta7 together =ith the state of residence. ,n this case& the treaties ma Members of Commission on uman Rights %rt. L&&&' "ec. 1G *2+ ormer natural (orn citi/ens as transferees of private lan#s' A"t) II1 Sec)  Natu"ali*e citi*ens une" Co!) Act No) <(7 5ho are 'ualified to be naturali+edL "ec. 2 5hen is the 106%ear residence re'uirement reduced to D %earsL "ec. 3 5ho are dis'ualified to be naturali+edL "ec.  eclaration of ,ntention& "ec. !   Procedure& "ections G? 5hen decision is e7ecuted& "ec. 1 ffect on =ife and minor children& "ec. 1!   enaturali+ation& "ec. 1? Citi*ens/i3 +$ le4islati-e act Loss an Reac9uisition o0 Citi*ens/i3) A"t) IV1 Sec) 71 Sec) %  Dual Citi*ens/i3. R)A) No) ='7= 5 The %dministrative Jaturaliation Haw of 2>>>  R)A) No) =%%>   Citienship Retention and Reac9uisition %ct of 2>>3 Ri4/t o0 Su00"a4e1 A"ticle V R) A) No) ='=   Everseas (oting Haw  4icolas- Lewis v. "1M5L5"  & ;9- "!# 4;9 *verseas ?ilipinos 'ualified to vote under the #.. Io. 919 need not have one %ear actual ph%sical residence in the  Philippines to e7ercise their right of suffrage. III) RIGHT TO LIFE1 LIBERTY AND 2RO2ERTY. SAFEGUARDS OF DUE 2ROCESS1 EUAL 2ROTECTION AND NON5I82AIR8ENT CLAUSES %) Ri4/t to Li0e  #epublic v. Nagandahan& D4D "!# -2 (200) Gamboa v. P>""upt. !han& et al.& G.#. Io. 1944& :ul% 2;& 2012  ,mbong v. *choa& G.#. Io. 20;19& pril & 201; B. Due 2"ocess Clause @Section'1 A"ticle III De0inition. Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life' liberty or property' in each appropriate case' be valid.    &t is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason' obedience to the dictates of   :ustice. Jegatively pit' arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided.    Correctly it has  been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. & t is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair   play. 0 ,chong v. $ernande+ (19D-) < | P a g e % law hears before it condemns' which proceeds upon in9uiry and renders :udgment only after trial. 0 arthmouth !ollege v. 5ood=ard& ; 5heaton D1 REUISITES OF DUE 2ROCESS Due process of law means simply that  *1+ There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the )overnment< *2+ This law shall be reasonable in its operation< *3+ &t shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed< and *+ &t shall be applicable alike to all the citiens of the state or to all of a class. 0 #ubi v.  Provincial oard of Mindoro (1919) SCO2E OF DUE 2ROCESS 2"oceu"al Due 2"ocess $rocedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of Cudicial   and 'uasi6Cudicial  agencies of the government. &t refers to the method or manner   by which a law is enforced. Su+stanti-e Due 2"ocess "ubstantive due process' asks =hether the government has an ade'uate reason for ta>+ $rivileged Communication "alcedo6*rtane+ v. !& $on. 3amora Iavarro v. ! and the People of the Philippines  ugust 1999 leCano v. !abuha%& ;4 "!# 1(200D) *ple v. Torres& 29 "!# (199) C. E9ual 2"otection Clause De0inition. A9ual protection re9uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike' both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. &t does not demand absolute e9uality among residents< it merely re9uires that all persons shall  be treated alike' under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is en:oyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. 0 ,chong v. $ernande+ (19D-) REUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION 10 | P a g e *1+ &t must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences< *2+ &t must be germane to the purpose of the law< *3+ &t must not be limited to eisting conditions only< and *+ %pply e'uall% to all  members of the same class. 2RESU82TION OF VALIDITY %ll classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid  unless shown otherwise by  petitioner. @acson v. 7ecutive "ecretar% (1999)A BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION# age' gender' religion' economic class' ethnicity' race' seual orientation' economic class' residence' disability' date of filingK effectivity of  the law !ases /rasuegui v. Philippine irlines& ,nc.& D49 "!# ;4- (200) ,arcia v. Drilon! - SCA /01 (123/) "errano v. Gallant Maritime "ervices& ,nc.& D2 "!# 2D; (2009) Sameer 4verseas %lacement Agenc! 'nc. v. Ca+iles , 732 SCRA 22 (201&)  5conomic 5qualit&$Iilipino Iirst $olicy# classification based on alienage  ,chong v.  $ernande+& 101 Phil. 114D (19D-)  Political 5qualit&$ Dilution of voting rights based on residence#  'uino and #obredo v. !*M!& G.#. Io. 19-9& pril -& 2010  5*clusion (ase# on se*ual orientation# ng adlad v. !*M!& G.#. Io. 190D2& pril  & 2010  Social 5qualit&$ Iorced resettlement based on ethnicity#  #ubi v. Provincial oard of   Mindoro& 9 Phil.& 440  Privilege (ase# on ethnicit&# !ru+ v. I!,P& G.#. Io. 1DD&  ecember 4& 2000 D) CONTRACT CLAUSE J NON5I82AIR8ENT CLAUSE 1. Concept of Mutual Ebligation *"ection 1>' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ Contract Clause# % law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties' either in the time or mode of performance' or imposes new conditions' or dispenses with those epressed' or authories for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms' is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. RAN;&"&TA"# *1+ -hen there is substantial impairment which *a+ changes the terms of legal contract either in time or mode of performance< *b+ imposes new conditions< *c+ dispenses with epressed conditions< or  *d+ authories for its satisfaction something different from that provided in the terms. *2+ -hen a law affects the rights of parties with reference to each other' and not with respect to nonparties. 0 Philippine #ural lectric !ooperatives ssociation v. "ecretar%& ,G& G.#. Io. 1;0-4& :une 10& 200  Aceptions to rule when the state may impair contracts# *1+ $ower of taation# government may increase taes covering certain transactions *2+ Regulation on loans# as a matter of public interest' the government may impose restrictions on loans 2. Concept of (ested Right 3. -aiver of Right Jigilar v. 'uino& G.#. Io. 10& :anuar% 1& 2011 Golden=a% Merchandising !orporation v. 'uitable P!, an<& G.#. Io. 19DD;0& March 1& 201 11 | P a g e IV) INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY. FREEDO8 OF E2RESSION @S2EECH AND 2RESS1 FREE ASSE8BLY AND 2ETITION1 FREEDO8 OF ASSOCIATION1 RELIGIOUS FREEDO8 AND ACADE8IC FREEDO8 %. FREEDO8 OF E2RESSION @S2EECH AND THE 2RESS 1. Definition *"ection ' %rticle &&&' Constitution+ NATURE AND SCO2E OF THE RIGHT. The primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of epression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was elevated to constitutional status 0 reflecting our own lesson of history' both political and legal' that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. The scope of freedom of epression is so broad that it etends protection to nearly all forms of communication. &t protects speech' print and assembly regarding secular as well as  political causes' and is not confined to any particular field of human interest. The protection covers myriad matters of public interest or concern embracing all issues' about which information is needed or appropriate' so as to enable members of society to cope with the eigencies of their period. 0!have+ v. Gon+ales *2>>?+ 2. Bases for $rotection# $romotion of Truth' Anhance $rinciples of Democracy' Apression of "elf Iulfillment of Citiens S3eec/1 e63"ession1 an 3"ess inclue. *1+ -ritten or spoken words *recorded or not+ *2+ "ymbolic speech *e.g. wearing armbands as symbol of protest+ *3+ Movies and other literary works 3. -hy "tate Restricts and &mposes Himitations on Ireedom of Apression# Maintenance of  $eace' $romotion of Community Morals' and $rotection of &ndividual Dignity FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE General #ule % party can 9uestion the validity of a statute onl% if' as applied   to him' it is unconstitutional. 0"outhern $emisphere v. nti6Terrorism !ouncil (2010)  7ception % 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 ,0w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 epression is deemed to :ustify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no re9uirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity./ The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and  perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. This rationale does not appl% to penal statutes  0without a freespeech aspect.  Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very eistence' and' if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone' the "tate may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. &n the area of criminal law' the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. 0"outhern $emisphere& supra Howe-e"1 sai oct"ines a33l$ to 3enal statutes w/en *1+ The statute is challenged as applied< or  *2+ The statute involves free speech 0 isini v. "ec. of :ustice (201;) OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE 12 | P a g e % governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. Tests a33lie to F"eeo! o0 S3eec/ # DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST. &f the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which the "tate has the right to prevent' then such words are punishable. 0 !abansag v.  ?ernande+ (19D-) CLEAR  AND 2RESENT DANGER  TEST. This rule re9uires that ,the danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas epressed/. 0 Gon+ales v. !*M!  (1949) BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST. -hen a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of   public order' and the regulation results in an indirect' conditional and partial abridgement of  speech' the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands greater protection. 0 merican !ommunications ssoc. v. ouds& 9 Q" 22 . ;nprotected "peechKApression and $rotected "peechKApression' distinguished# a. Un3"otecte S3eec/JE63"ession # )eneral )uidelines' Ebscenity' and &ncitement to Jational "ecurity' Ialse or Misleading %dvertisement' Hibelous "peech' ate "peech and Contumacious "peech.  b. 2"otecte S3eec/JE63"ession# all those ecluded from unprotected epression may include utterances critical of public conduct' ordinary commercial speech' and satirical speechKparody. !. How Go-e"n!ent Rest"icts F"eeo! o0 E63"ession "ontent Base# Restrictions #istinguishe#  from "ontent 4eutral Restrictions as  gleane# from Fustice Carpio6s concurring opinion in Chave v. )onale' supra *i+. any contentbased prior restraint on $RETACTAD epression is unconstitutional. *ii+. only unprotected epression is sub:ect to prior restraint. *iii+. prior restraint presumes that the epression is unconstitutional. *iv+.government has the burden of proof every time it eercises censorship. @. Stana"s o0 Re-iew OKB"ien Test on Content5Neut"al Rest"ictions.  ?or validit% of content6neutral regulation *1+&f it is within the constitutional power of the government *2+ &f it furthers an important or substantial government interest *3+ &f the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free epression *+ &f the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest 8ille" Test to determine obscenity# *1+ -hether the average person' applying contemporary community standards would find that the work' taken as a whole' appeals to prurient interest *2+ -hether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way' seual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law *3+ -hether the work' taken as a whole' lacks serious' literary' artistic' political' or scientific value 0 Miller v. ! (19-) also applied in ?ernando v. ! (2004) Doct"ines o0 st"ict sc"utin$1 o-e"+"eat/ an -a4ueness Li+el as a C"i!inal O00ense @A"ticle 7><1 Re-ise 2enal Coe 13 | P a g e !ases 1. Chave5 v. ,on5ale5 , 5&5 SCRA &&1 (200<) 2. Disini! #r. v. Secretar of #ustice , 716 SCRA 201& and 723 SCRA 10% (201&) 3. 4sme6a v. Commission on 7lections , 2<< SCRA &&7 (1%%<) &. Social Weather Stations! 'ncorporated v. Commission on 7lections , 357 SCRA &%6 (2001) 5. ,MA et*or"! 'nc. v. Commission on 7lections , 73& SCRA << (201&) 6. Diocese of $acolod v. Commission on 7lections , 7&7 SCRA 1 (2015) 7. 389nited :ransport ;oalison (389ta") v. Commission on 7lections , 755 SCRA &&1 (2015) <. Social Weather Stations! 'nc. v. Commission on 7lections , 755 SCRA 12& (2015) %. Southern &emisphere 7ngagement et*or"! 'nc. v. Anti8:errorism Council, 632 SCRA 1&6 (2010) 10. %harmaceutical and &ealth Care Association of the %hilippines v. Duque ''' 535 SCRA 265 (2007) >Read Se+aate 9+inion of C.?. Pno@ 11. $aan v. 7rmita, &<< SCRA 226 (2006 12. 'ntegrated $ar of the %hilippines v. Atien5a! #r. , 613 SCRA 51< (2010) 13. e< =etter of the 9% =a* Facult 7ntitled >estoring 'ntegrit< A Statement  + the Facult of the 9niversit of the %hilippines College of =a* on the  Allegations of %lagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court!? 6&& SCRA 5&3 (2011) 1&. "oriano vs. aguardia 0).R. Jo. 1@G?!. %pril 2=' 2>>=# $lain and simple insults to another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious  speech. @Velasco1 #) B) RIGHT TO INFOR8ATION 1. Right to &nformation' %rticle &&&' "ection G' Constitution The constitutional right to information includes official information on on6going negotiations  before a final contract. The information' however' must constitute definite propositions by the government' and should not cover recognied eceptions. @!have+ v. Philippine state  uthorit% (2002)  iplomatic secrets (iplomatic Iegotiations Privilege) "ecrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the right to information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature. -hile the full tet 0of the F$A$% may not be kept perpetually confidential' it is in line with the  public interest   that the offers echanged during negotiations continue to be privileged information. Iurthermore' the information sought includes documents produced and communicated by a party e7ternal   to the $hilippine government. owever' such privilege is merely presumptive' and will not apply to all cases. 0 1>+ 2. strada v. scritor& ;0 "!# 1 (200) ;92 "!# 1 (2004) .Taruc v. e a !ru+& ;D "!# 12 (200D) ;. ,mbong v. *choa (constitutionalit% of the #$ ill) #ead onl% the portion on conscientious obCector in relation to freedom of religion F) Acae!ic F"eeo! The right to academic freedom may only be invoked only against the state. %ll private educational institutions may prescribe its own re9uirements to maintain the standard of  9uality of academic 9uality. "ase$ PT of "t. Mathe= !hristian cadem% et al.& v. Metroban<& G.#. Io. 1-4D1& March 2& 2010) V) 2HYSICAL LIBERTY. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDO8 OF 8OVE8ENT FREEDO8 TO BE SECURE IN ONEKS 2ERSON1 HO8E AND 2OSSESSION A) FREEDO8 OF ABODE1 FREEDO8 TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL ') Constitutional Gua"antee une"  "ection @' %rticle &&&' Constitution F"eeo! o0 !o-e!ent inclues two "i4/ts. 1+ Hiberty of abode 2+ Hiberty of travel LI8ITATIONS. In ce"tain instances +ot/ t/e li+e"t$ o0 a+oe an "i4/t to t"a-el !a$ +e i!3ai"e) Case. *! v. :udge ,gnacio . Macarine& .M. Io. MT:61061--0& :ul% 1& 2012 16 | P a g e &n interest of national security' public safety or public health and as may be provided +$ law1 +ot/ t/e 0"eeo! o0 a+oe an "i4/t to t"a-el !a$ +e "est"icte) Case. Gudani v. "enga& ;9 "!# 4-1 (2004) The eecutive of a municipality does not have the right to force citiens of the $hilippine &slands to change their domicile from one locality to another. 0 Jillavicencio vs. uG==12"C and abeas Data 0%.M.  Jo.>?1 1@"C  Melissa !. #o7as v. President Macapagal6 rro%o& et al.& G.#. Io. 191DD& "eptember -& 2010 !anlas v. Iapico $omeo=ners ssn.& ,nc.& DD; "!# 20 (200) !. W"it o0 Ha+eas Data Case. Jiveres and "u+ara v. "t. Theresas !ollege& G.#. Io. 202444& "eptember 29&201; @. W"it o0 aliasan Case.  MM v. !oncerned residents of Manila a% G.#. Ios. 1-19;-6;& ecember 1& 200 VI) RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND OTHER RIGHTS RELATED TO CRI8E AND 2UNISH8ENT A) FREE ACCESS TO COURTS 1. Re3"esentation +e0o"e t/e Cou"ts ' %rticle &&&' "ection 11' Constitution Case. People v. $on. +arraga and Prevendido& G. #. Io. 1-11-& *ctober 12& 2011 2) Costs o0 Liti4ation  #e Huer% of Mr. #oger !. Prioreschi re 7emption from egal and ?iling ?ees of the Good  "hepherd ?oundation& ,nc.& D94 "!# ;01 (2009)  #e #e'uest of ,P Iational !ommittee on egal id !lients from Pa%ing ?iling& oc>= 0R.%. Jo. =G! C) RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. Basis o0 Ri4/t to Bail' %rticle &&&' "ection 13' Constitution  -hen Bail is allowed W/en Bail is a !atte" o0 "i4/t   *Rules on Criminal $rocedure' Rule 11' "ection + or  a matter of discretion on the part of the cour *Rule on Criminal $rocedure' Rule 11' "ection !+ Case. :uan Ponce6nrile v. "andiganba%an& ugust 1& 201D  2. Natu"e o0 C"i!inal Due 2"ocess #u"isiction o-e" C"i!inal O00enses # a%an Muna v. #omulo and *ple& G.#. Io. 1D941&  ?ebruar% 1& 2011 1< | P a g e Criminal &mmunity isini v. "andiganba%an& G.#. Io. 10D4;& :une 22& 2010 Ri4/ts in-ol-e in C"i!inal 2"oceein4s' %rticle &&&' "ection 1*1+ and *+ Ri4/t to Su+stanti-e an 2"oceu"al Due 2"ocess 2"esu!3tion o0 Innocence Ri4/t to +e /ea" +$ Hi!sel0 an Counsel To +e in0o"!e o0 t/e Natu"e an Cause o0 Accusation a4ainst Hi! Ri4/t to Ha-e a S3ee$1 I!3a"tial an 2u+lic T"ial Ri4/t to 8eet t/e Witnesses Face to Face To Ha-e Co!3ulso"$ 2"ocess to Secu"e t/e Attenance o0 Witnesses an t/e 2"ouction o0 E-ience in /is +e/al0 3) S3ee$ T"ial -) S3ee$ Dis3osition o0 Cases ' %rticle &&&' "ection1@' Constitution D) THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF5INCRI8INATION 1. W/en Ri4/t !a$ +e in-oe. in all C"i!inal Cases1 A!inist"ati-e Cases an I!3eac/!ent %) T"ansactional I!!unit$ 7) As3ects co-e"e +$ t/e Witness 2"otection 2"o4"a! an C"i!inal 2"oceu"e Cases. gustin v. !ourt of ppeals& ;40 "!# 1D (200D) Tanchanco v. "andiganba%an& ;-4 "!# 202 (200D) E) 2ROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE #EO2ARDY 1. Natu"e o0 Dou+le #eo3a"$1 A"ticle III1 Section %'1 Constitution Natu"e o0 "i4/t# People v. ante Tan& G.#. Io. 14-D24& :ul% 24& 2010 W/en "i4/t will not a33l$  ra+a v. "andiganba%an& G. #. Io. 19D0& ?ebruar% 20& 201  7ception& =hen invo) 2"o/i+ition a4ainst C"uel an De4"ain4 2unis/!ent1 A"ticle III1 Section '=@' an @%1 Constitution ?) Non5I!3"ison!ent 0o" De+t o" 2oll Ta61 A"ticle III1 Section %&1 Constitution Case.  People v. acu%cu%& 1- "!# 90 (199) G) BAN ON E P1S!  FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER  1) C/a"acte"istics o0 an E6 2ost Facto Law1 A"ticle III1 Section %%1 Constitution Su00icienc$ o0 In0o"!ation# People v. alao& et al.& G.#. 1-419& :anuar% 24& 2011 2. W/en Ret"oacti-it$ o0 t/e Law is allowe "alvador v. Mapa& D9 "!# ; (200-) Jaleroso v. People& supra 1% | P a g e Re0e"ences. Be"nas1 #oa9uin G)1 T/e '=( 2/ili33ine Constitution. A Co!3"e/ensi-e Re-iewe" @%&'' V) V) 8eno*a1 Ba" Re-iew Guie in 2olitical Law @'=( En"i9ue 8) Fe"nano1 T/e Constitution o0 t/e 2/ili33ines @'=(( Isa4ani 8) C"u*1 2olitical Law Rene B) Go"os3e1 Constitutional Law1 Volu!es I an II @%&&? 8i"ia! De0enso"5 Santia4o1 Constitutional Law@%&&> #) 8ias 8a"9ue*1 T/e Constitutional 2/iloso3/$ o0 2/ili33ine #u"is3"uence @%&&> Antonio B) Nac/u"a1 Outline in 2olitical Law Re-iew @%&&? 20 | P a g e