Consti 2 Notes 1E Dean Bautista

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1 – Due Process and Equal Protection

• • • •

• •

• • • • •

•

Acebedo Optical Co. v. CA - Local governments may regulate business such as the selling of eyeglasses but may not engage in the licensing of or regulation of professions. Phil Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil Blooming Mills Co, Inc. - A valid infringement on human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. Duncan Association of Employees v. Glaxo Wellcome - A company has the right to protect its trade secrets thus the rule on dismissing an employee on the ground of marrying an employee of a competitor company is a valid one. Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca - The essential requirements of procedural due process in courts for non-criminal cases are the following: 1. A tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear the matter 2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person or property, which is the subject of the proceedings 3. Defendant is given an opportunity to be heard 4. Judgment is rendered upon lawful hearing Secretary v. Judge Lantion - During the executive phase of an extradition proceeding, an extraditee does not have the right of access to evidence – only during the judicial phase. Fabella v. CA – The requirements of due process in administrative cases are the following: 1. Right of notice of the institution of proceedings 2. Opportunity to be heard 3. Tribunal clothed with competent jurisdiction 4. A finding supported by substantial evidence Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec - Comelec cannot compel print media to donate advertisement spaces since this is the taking of property without just compensation TELEBAP v. Comelec - Broadcast media may be compelled to donate airtime since: a) media networks do not own the airwaves and frequencies; b) they are given franchises to operate which is a privilege given by the government. US v. Toribio – To satisfy substantive due process, the laws must appear: 1. that the interest of the public require such interference 2. the means are reasonable necessary Ynot v. ICA – The confiscation of carabaos or carabeef is not reasonably related to the purpose of the executive order, which is the preserving the carabaos for the benefit of small farmers. People v. Cayat – Requisites for a classification to be reasonable (equal protection clause): 1. Must rest on substantial distinctions 2. Germane to the purpose of the law 3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only 4. Must equally apply to all members of the same class International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisimbing – The practice of giving higher pay for foreign hires than Filipinos of equal rank violate the principle of “equal pay fpr equal work”. But giving the foreign hires more benefits such as transportation and housing

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 1 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

• • •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

allowances are allowed. Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretary – Appointive officials and elective officials do not belong to the same class. Central Bank Employees v. Bangko Sentral – A provision of law, initially valid, may become subsequently unconstitutional on th ground that its continued operation would violate the equal protection of the law (relative unconstitutionality) Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City – The city, in passing an ordinance imposing a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central by name, violates the equal protection clause.

US Cases

• • • • • • • •

Block v. Rutherford - Restrictions on contact visits does not violate the military detainees' right to liberty. It is a reasonable exercise of the State's police power. Goesart v. Cleary – A state law prohibiting women to become licensed bartenders is valid. The distinctions made between men and women are reasonably related to the purpose of the law. (Note: this case was overruled by Craig v. Boren in 1976) Lochner v. New York – A law which limited the hours a bakery employee could work abridged the liberty of contract. Meyer v. Nebraska – a law restricting the teaching of a foreign language violated the due process clause. Roe v. Wade – the trimester approach to abortion: The decision to conduct abortion is left to the mother during the 1st three months of pregnancy. The State cannot prohibit this. (decision was criticized for judicial legislation) Pennsylvania v. Casey – abortion is no longer a fundamental right (overturned Roe v. Wade decision). States may restrict abortion so long as they do not place “undue burdens” on the woman’s right to choose. Buck v. Bell – The procedure of compulsory sterilization ran counter to the due process clause, yet the US Supreme Court upheld the legitimization of the practice. Furman v. Georgia – Death penalty constituted as “cruel and unusual” punishment and violated the constitution. It also focused on how the penalty was applied with racial bias. It was imposed more often to black defendants.

Section 2 – Search and Seizure

• • • • •

Sony Music v. Judge Espanol – A liberal construction in search and seizure cases is given in favor of the individual. People v. Marti – Restrictions on unlawful searches and seizures are directed only against the government. Valmonte v. Genral de Villa – checkpoints and routine inspections are reasonable forms of searches. But if the inspection becomes more thorough or invasive, there must be probable cause. Such search is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. People v. Escano – checkpoints need not be announced. It defeats the purpose by forewarning potential violators of the law. Microsoft Corp v. Maxicorp – probable cause is concerned with probability and not

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 2 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

• • •

• • •

•

• • •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

certainty. There is no need to present proof beyond reasonable doubt. Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board – Commissioner on Immigration may not issue an arrest warrant but may order the arrest of an alien in carrying out an order which has become final. Harvey v. Santiago – arrests, for purposes of deportation, need no warrant. There is no probable cause needed – only a specific charge against the aliens. The legal basis for the warrantless arrest is the “mission order”. Soliven v. Judge Makasiar – What is required of the judge is the personal determination of probable cause and not the personal examination of the reports. (but the judge must still look at the supporting documents since it is his responsibility to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Relying on the Prosecutor's certification alone is never enough – Lim v. Felix) People v. Veloso – A “John Doe” warrant (warrant directed to a person whose name is uncertain or unknown) is valid provided it contains adequate description to enable the officer to identify the accused. Malacat v. CA – For a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, there must be a lawful arrest first before a search can be made – this process cannot be reversed. People v. Evaristo – Elements of seizure of evidence in plain view: 1. A prior valid intrusion 2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police 3. Legality of evidence is immediately apparent 4. Evidence is noticed without further search De Garcia v. Locsin – Elements of a consented warrantless search: 1. The right exists 2. The person involved had knowledge of such right 3. The person had actual intention to relinquish such right Papa v. Mago – Customs search is included in allowable forms of warrantless searches. People v. Aruta – Even for warrantless searches, the requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied (exception is stop and frisk where it can only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion) People v. Hernandez – accused is estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the Information before his arraignment.

US Cases

•

• • •

Henry v. US – probable cause would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense had been committed (arrest) and/or the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched (search and seizure) Camara v. Municipal Court – A person may refuse to permit city housing inspectors to conduct an administrative search (safety inspection) of one's house in the absence of a warrant. US v. Tarazon – Border (in this case, the US-Mexico border) searches are one of the few exceptions to the general rule of prohibiting warrantless searches. Katz v. US – Protection of a person's property from intrusion or search extends to

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 3 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

intangible properties such as electronic communication. California v. Greenwood – the 4th amendment does not prohibit warrantless searches & seizures of garbage left outside the house. Terry v. Ohio – the stop-and-frisk is an instance of a valid warrantless search. The officer is entitled to conduct a carefully limited search of the suspect's outer clothing for the protection of himself and others in the area. California v. Ciraolo – The method of flying over respondent's backyard to confirm the presence of marijuana was a valid form of search since the observations were non-intrusive and were conducted within public airspace. Oliver v. US - Police found marijuana being grown in an open field a mile away from petitioner’s house. The 4th amendment does not extend to open fields. Privacy in open fields is not recognized as “reasonable” since open fields are accessible to the public. Minnesota v. Olson – even if the person is only a guest (not the owner of the house), he is still protected by the 4th amendment from warrantless arrests. Minnesota v. Carter – Observations conducted on a commercial property does not violate the 4th amendment since the expectation of privacy in a commercial property, where business is conducted, is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home. Payton v. New York – A warrantless arrest or search may be done under exigent circumstances, but absent such circumstances this manner of intrusion may not be done. California v. Acevedo – A warrantless search of a moving vehicle includes searching any closed containers within an automobile. New York v. Belton – searching the respondent's jacket for contraband was lawful since it was incidental to his arrest and “within arrestee's immediate control”. Illinois v. Lafayette – a warrant or probable cause is immaterial when the belongings of the arrested individual is incidental to the process of booking and jailing the suspect. Chimel v. California – For warrantless searches incidental to a person's arrest, the search is only limited to the “area within the arrestee's immediate control”. For the routine search of rooms and other concealed areas, a search warrant is required. Maryland v. Buie - A "protective sweep" is a quick and limited search of a premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. There is no need for a warrant for this kind of search.

Section 3 – Exclusionary Rule

• • •

Stonehill v. Diokno – things to be seized improperly or vaguely described were considered inadmissible evidence. People v. Andre Marti – the right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked against the State if the act of intrusion is committed by a private individual. Marquez v. Hon. Aniano Desierto – Exceptions on the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits: 1. examinations authorized by the Monetary Board on grounds of bank fraud/irregularity 2. examination by an independent auditor and results are for the exclusive use of the bank

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 4 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F. 3. 4. 5. 6.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

upon written permission of the depositor impeachment cases upon court order in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of a public official where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation

US Cases

• •

Wong Sun v. US – Purged Taint Exception: the search was illegally done but over time, such evidence becomes valid if additional factors link the illegal search and the final discovery of evidence. Such factors “cleanse” the illegal search and validates the evidence. US v. Leon – Good Faith Exception: officers relying in good faith on a warrant but was found later to be unsupported by probable cause.

Section 4 – Freedom of Speech and of the Press

• • •

• •

Adiong v. Comelec – the placing of stickers on “mobile” places posed no substantial danger to government interest. Prohibiting such acts constitutes an unreasonable restriction. ABS-CBN v. Comelec – the ban on exit polls does not satisfy the clear and present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely speculative. Ayer Productions Ltd. v. Judge Capulong – The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication of matters of public interest. Such right protects the right against unwarranted intrusions and wrongful publication of private affairs which are outside the sphere of legitimate public concern. Policarpio v. Manila Times – to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory information must not only be true but also fair and it must be made in good faith. PCIB v. Philnabank Employees – Peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected and the guarantee of free speech (statements on placards) protects the strikers.

US Cases

• • • •

•

New York Times v. US – Any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. Freedman v. Maryland – the State Board of Censors can only approve a film and had no power to ban it. Any restraint imposed must be limited to preservation of the status quo compatible with sound judicial resolution. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission - To enjoy protection, commercial speech must not be false or misleading and should not propose an illegal transaction. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Comm of NY – Commercial speech may be regulated if: 1. Government has substantial interest to protect 2. the regulation directly advances that interest 3. it is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest US v. O'Brien – O'Brien Test is used to justify a regulation: 1. it is within the power of government 2. furthers an important government interest

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 5 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

•

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

3. government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression 4. restriction to the freedom is no greater than to the furtherance of the interest Miller v. California – Miller Test is used to test for obscenity: 1. the average person, applying contemporary standards, find that the work appeals to the prurient interest 2. the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct 3. the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Section 5 – Freedom of Religion

•

•

Estrada v. Escritor – Benevolent Accommodation Doctrine: freedom to carry out one's duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not dependent on the grace of legislature. Any law in conflict with a violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in order to be enforceable. The burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the law is necessary to protect its interests. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union – in closed shop agreements, employees may be exempted from compulsory membership in a union if their religious belief prohibits it. The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights. In case of conflict, the latter must yield to the former.

US Cases

• • • •

•

•

Cantwell v. Connecticut – the freedom to believe is absolute but the freedom to act is not. McDaniel v. Paty – the disqualification of ecclesiastics from public office violates their fundamental rights. If elected, the clergy will not create too close an alliance between church and state. Goldman v. Weinberger – the amendment of religious freedom (wearing headgears as required by religious beliefs) does not require the military to accommodate such practices in view of the army's interest and need for uniformity and regulation. Employment Division v. Smith (peyote case) – the religion clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious beliefs requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice. Lemon v. Kurtzman – government aid is permissible if: 1. it has a secular legislative purpose 2. the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3. it does not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions Wisconsin v. Yoder – children could not be placed under compulsory education if it is against their religious beliefs.

Section 6 – Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel

•

Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals – releasing a petitioner on bail contemplates such “lawful order” of regulating the right to travel to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence.

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 6 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

• •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Marcos v. Manglapus – The right to travel and liberty of abode are distinct from the right to return to one's country. It is not covered by Section 6 thus the prescribed requirements do not apply. Manotoc, Jr. v. CA – Preventing a person from leaving the country is a consequence of a bail bond.

Section 7 – Right to Information

• • • •

Chavez v. PCGG – the right of the public to information does not attach to information regarding confidential matters or those that are still in the “exploratory” stage. Chavez v. PEA and AMARI – once a committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a “definite proposition” on the part of the government and the public's right to information attaches. Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. - the Constitution gives the public right to “access official records” but it does not give them the right to compel custodians to furnish lists, studies or any processed information other than what is already available. Lantaco v. Llamas – While public officers in control of public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which such records may be inspected, it does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access.

Section 8 – Right of Association

•

•

• •

United Pepsi Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma – the ban of managerial employees from joining a labor union is valid because if these managerial employees would belong to a Union, there would be conflict of interest. The Union can become companydominated with the presence of managerial employees thus defeating the purpose of a labor union. Occena v. Comelec – the law prohibiting Barangay Candidates from representing or receiving aid from a political party is a valid one since the law intends to prevent the danger of disenabling barangay officials from performing their functions as agents of a neutral community. Tanduay Distillery Labor Union v. NLRC – Closed shop agreements are legal since it is a valid form of union security. SSS v. CA – Government employees have the right to form unions but do not have the constitutional right to strike.

Section 9 – Eminent Domain Definition Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge - Eminent Domain is the ultimate right of sovereign power to appropriate public and private property within the territorial sovereignty for public purposes. Constitutional provisions on eminent domain: • ART III sec 9 – just compensation • ART XII sec 18 – public utilities Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 7 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

• • Types    

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

ART XIII sec 4 – land reform ART XVIII sec 22 – idle agricultural lands of “Public Use” Socialized Housing Irrigation Systems Tourism Attractions Historical Landmarks

Republic v Vda. De Castellvi - requisites of “taking” for purposes of eminent domain • Expropriator must enter the private property • Entrance must be permanent • Entry must be under color of legal authority • Property must be devoted for public use • Utilization must deprive owner of all beneficial enjoyment of the property Just Compensation General Rule: In determining just compensation, trial by commissioners is a substantive right, which a judge may not dispense with. Exception: Trial by commissioners is not mandatory in agrarian reform cases. Basis of the value of the expropriated property when a case is filed after the time of taking and the property's value increased: 2. When the expropriator has increased its value by its own acts – value at the time of the earlier taking. 3. When the value increased independently – value at the time of the later filing Note: The 2. 3. 4.

Court may only substitute value if: commissioners applied illegal principles to evidence submitted disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence amount is grossly inadequate or excessive

LGU’s and Power of Inferior Domain Requisites for Local Government Units to exercise expropriations: 2. Ordinance 3. Public use 4. Just compensation 5. A previous offer has been made but offer was not accepted by the property owner Notes: • LGU's require to make a previous offer before the taking, whereas the State need not make a previous offer • LGU's cannot expropriate on the strength of a resolution • Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only as a last means of acquisition Philippines Cases Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 8 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

 Barlin v Ramirez - In the hands of Congress, power of eminent domain is plenary. It can reach private property already dedicated for public use or even property devoted to religious worship.

 Republic v Juan – An executive order cannot limit the right of eminent domain of the Republic.

 NAPOCOR v Misericordia v Gutierez – Acquisition of mere right-of-way is an exercise of the power of eminent domain (suspending transmission lines over private property). Just compensation is still required.

 Garcia v Court of Appeals – If entry, by permission to occupy, was without the intention of expropriation, there is no technical “taking”.

 City Government v. Judge Ercita – By police power, property is regulated and there is no transfer of ownership. By power of eminent domain, property is taken, ownership is transfered and there must be just compensation.

 City of Baguio v NAWASA - Property acquired by the municipality with its private funds in its corporate or private capacity (Patrimonial Property) requires compensation.

 Salas v Jarenico – Public buildings held by the municipality on behalf of the State requires no compensation.

 Municipality of Makati v Court of Appeals – Just compensation includes not only the correct amount but also the payment being made within a reasonable period of time.

 Republic v Sarabia - Value of the compensation must be determined as of the time the expropriating authority takes possession of the property and not as of the institution of the proceedings.

 Municipality of Paranaque v VM Realty Corp – A final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground of incomplete requirements, cannot bar the State from exercising its power of eminent domain over the same property again after complying with the requirements.

 Noble v City of Manila - When there is a valid existing contract, expropriation is not a valid substitute. The enforcement of the contract is preferred.

 Bel-Air Village Association v IAC - the order of opening a private road (removing the gate) was in the nature of the exercise of police power (regulation) and not eminent domain. Compensation is not due. US Cases  United States v Causby – Establishing an easement through the airspace over private Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 9 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

property, resulting to damages, is considered compensable taking.

 Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co v New York City – A law designating certain buildings or areas as landmark sites is a type of zoning legislation. It does not constitute a “taking” of property as contemplated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment since it is merely a regulation.

 Pennsylvania Hospital v Philadelphia – The State cannot enter into a contract not to exercise its power of eminent domain. Section 10 – Non-impairment of Contracts

 La Insular v Machuca Go-Tanco – Laws imposing a sales tax does not change the relation between buyers and sellers, thus there is no impairment. It merely imposes an obligation to the seller to one not a party to the contract, the government.

 Co v PNB – New laws regulating contracts (eg: bank loan and mortgage laws) cannot be applied retroactively or else they will violate the non-impairment clause.

 Rutter v Esteban – the non-impairment clause is not absolute. Contracts may be impaired through the valid exercise of police power.

 Del Rosario v Bengzon – The Generics Act does not impair the obligation of contracts. No contract results from the consultation between physician and the patient.

 C&M Timber Corp v Alcala – licenses and permits are not contracts but are instruments subject to the State's power to regulate. Section 11 – Free Access to Courts

 Acar v Rosal - Indigent persons are those who have no property or sources of income sufficient for their own support aside from their own labor.

 Martinez v People - Motion to litigate pauper litigants may be entertained by the Appellate Court. Section 12 – Rights Under Custodial Investigation Guarantees and Availability: Miranda v Arizona – A person under custodial investigation has the following rights: 2. remain silent 3. consult with a lawyer and if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him 4. to be informed of the said rights Notes: Right to remain silent: Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 10 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

2. To uphold the right against self-incrimination 3. It is the responsibility of the State to prove its case against the accused even without the participation of the best source of evidence, which is the accused himself. 4. People v Gamboa – Right to remain silent extends only to testimonial compulsion and not physical evidence

• • • • •

• • • •

Right to counsel: People v Layuso – It is not intended to stop the accused from saying anything that may incriminate him but to preclude the slightest coercion. Miranda v Arizona – The moment the person under investigation asks for a lawyer, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present People v Mojello – The suspect has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him by the police and ask for another one. People v Galit – In localities where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place where there is one Gamboa v Judge Cruz – The right to counsel does not apply to situations where a person is in a police line-up. But the moment investigators tries to extract admissions, the rights will activate. Right to be informed: People v Nicandro – There must be a meaningful transmission or communication of the rights, which includes the explanation of their effects People v Tolentino – There is no presumption of regularity to “in-custody confessions”. Prosecution has the burden of proving that the Constitutional Safeguards were observed Art III sec 12 – Violation of the rights will render evidence (confessions or admissions) obtained as a result of interrogation inadmissible Art III sec 12 – These rights may only be waived in the presence of counsel

Confessions and Admissions People v Deniega – Requisites for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible: 1. Voluntary confession 2. Made with the assistance of counsel 3. Express 4. In writing 5. Signed or thumbmarked

 People v Cabiles – Spontaneous statements, those that were not elicited by the authorities, are not covered by Art III sec 12, thus are admissible evidence.

 People v Tawat – This rule does not apply to confessions made to private individuals since the situation is not a custodial investigation. Note: Under US jurisprudence, evidence obtained, where the Miranda rights were not observed, are curable under the Purged Taint Exception. But if the Miranda rights were observed but evidence is Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 11 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

obtained through force, violence and intimidation, it is not curable. Cases

 Escobedo v Illinois - These rights become available after a person has been taken into custody and the police conduct a process of interrogation (US jurisprudence).

 People v Loveria – These rights become available after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way (Philippine jurisprudence).

 People v Domantay – RA 7438 extended this guarantee and these rights to situations where an individual has merely been “invited” for questioning.

 People v Taylaran – The rights are not available when a person voluntarily presents himself to the police and makes his admissions.

 Sebastian, Jr v Garchitorena – Administrative investigations are not covered by Art III sec 12.

 People v Ayson – Section12 does not apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court. Section 13 – Right to Bail General Rule: All persons, before conviction, have the right to bail Exceptions: • When the charge is punishable by reclusion perpetua • when evidence of guilt is strong Cases

 Comendador v de Villa - Soldiers under court martial do not have the right to bail  People v Donato – Agreeing to “remain in legal custody” is a waiver of his right  Marcos v Cruz – Merely filing a reclusion perpetua case against a person does not make him lose his right to bail. Loss of right depends on the quantum of evidence and can be determined only after hearing.

 Almeda v Villaluz – Bail bonds need not be strictly in cash form or else it can be unconstitutionally excessive.

 Cardines v Rosete – The 1994 rules of court has placed Life Imprisonment on the same level as Reclusion Perpetua (No Bail)

 US v Judge Puruganan – Extradition is not a criminal proceeding thus a respondent in such Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 12 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

a proceeding is not entitled to bail. Bail is also not available in deportation proceedings.

 Manotoc, Jr v CA – Consequences of a bail bond may prevent a respondent from leaving the country. Section 14 – Criminal Due Process Definition  US v Ocampo – If the procedure fully protects life, liberty and property of the citizens, it will be held to be due process of the law.

 Nunez v Sandiganbayan – Due process is satisfied of the accused is informed of the charges against him, conviction being made to rest on evidence, and decision is rendered by a competent court. Presumption of Innocence  Marquez, Jr v Commission on Elections – Disqualification of fugitives from justice from running for public office does not violate the presumption of innocence. It is a reasonable qualification prescribed by Congress.

 Banares v CA – Presumption of Innocence is not absolute. Legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of guilt and shift the burden of proof of innocence to the accused provided there be a rational connection between the facts.

 US v Luling – The State has the right to declare what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt and shift the burden of proving innocence to the defendant. Impartial Trial  People v Narajos – There is no legal impediment when a judge, who has partly heard the case, is replaced by his successor. It is sufficient that the decision of the case is solely based on the cold record or evidences before him.

 Ignacio v Villaluz – A judge, who previously convicted a petitioner, and is trying the same petitioner for a different offense should disqualify himself on the ground of partiality.

 People v Sendaydiego – A judge who determined probable cause and conducted the trial on that same case is presumed to be impartial in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Right to Counsel  Johnson v Zerbst – The right to counsel is the realistic recognition that the average defendant does not have the professional skill to protect himself before a tribunal.

 US v Gimeno – The right to counsel is a right, which a defendant should not be deprived of, and the failure of the court to observe it would be sufficient cause for the reversal of the case. Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 13 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

 Libuit v People – Duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio is mandatory only at the time of arraignment. Appointment during cross-examination would be discretionary with the trial court.

 People v Agbayani – There is presumption of regularity in the court's compliance with the procedural requirements imposed by law. It can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the contrary.

 Amion v Judge Chiongson – The “preference in the choice of counsel” pertains to a person under custodial investigation (Art III sec 12 par 1) rather than one in a criminal procedure (Art III sec 14 par 2) Right to Speedy Trial

 Martin v Gen. Fabian Ver – Delay of the trial begins only after the filing of information and not the time of detention. Right to a Public Trial  Garcia v Domingo – Exception to the right: when the evidence is characterized as “offensive to decency or public morals,” the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives and counsel. Right to Meet Witness Face to Face 2-fold purpose: • to give the accused the opportunity ti test the testimony of the witness by crossexamination • to allow the judge to observe the deportation of the witness Exceptions: • Admissibility of “dying declarations” • Trial in absentia Parada v Veneracion – Requisites of Trial in Absentia: 2. Accused has been arraigned 3. He has been duly notifed 4. His failure to appear is unjustifiable People v Seneris – Partial testimony already covered by an incomplete cross-examination, when failure to complete the examination was neither the fault of the defense nor the prosecution, should be admissible. Dequito v Arellano – This right is not available during preliminary investigation but only during trial. Section 15 – Habeas Corpus Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 14 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Definitions • Writ of Habeas Corpus – writ directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place. • Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus – Right to have immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty. 2. The issuance of the writ is never suspended. 3. The privilege of the writ may be suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion or when public safety requires it. Dizon v Eduardo – If respondents has not sufficiently proved that they have released the detainees, petitioners may refer the case to the Commissioner on Human Rights. Section 16 – Speedy Disposition of Cases General Rule: All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases Exception: reasonable or justifiable delay Section 14 – covers only the trial phase of criminal proceedings Section 16 – covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings Cases Guerrero v CA – a rehearing of the case is justified since the delay was neither the fault of the defense nor that of the prosecution. Roque v Ombudsman - the remedy for unreasonable delay is dismissal of the case through mandamus. Section 17 – Right Against Self Incrimination Art III Sec 1 – Right to privacy: covers papers, houses and effects Art III Sec 17 – Self Incrimination: covers testimonies only US v Navarro – Purposes: 2. Witness is placed under the strongest temptation to commit perjury 3. It would prevent extorting of confession by duress Cases

 US v Tan Teng – What is prohibited is the use of compulsion to extort communication from the witness and not an inclusion of his body in evidence (physical evidence).

 Beltran v Samson – A person may not be compelled to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as evidence. Writing involves the application of intelligence and attention. There is participation on the part of the witness.

 Bagadiong v Gonzales – In civil cases, the petitioner must wait until the incriminating Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 15 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

question is asked before raising the right.

 Cabal v Kapunan, Jr. - The right against self-incrimination is available in administrative hearings if the penalty that may be imposed partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding

 Evangelista v Jarencio – This right is not available during a fact-finding investigation.  Boyd v United States – compulsory production of private books and papers of the owner is compelling him to be a witness against himself.

 Hale v Henkel – Juridical persons (corporations) are not covered by this right thus can be compelled to submit incriminating corporate papers.

 Shapiro v United States – Not all personal papers are protected by the self-incrimination clause. This right cannot cover papers that are subject to government regulations. Section 18 – Involuntary Servitude General Rule: No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist Exceptions: 2. for a punishment of a crime 3. render service in the interest of national defense 4. return to work order Sarmiento v Tuico – A return to work order must be obeyed even if his inclination is to strike. The worker who refuses to obey still has the option to give up his work. Section 19 – Cruel and Inhuman Punishment General Rule: Death Penalty shall not be imposed Exception: Congress restores it for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes Note: Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-2005 (April 19, 2005) - despite the aforementioned amendments, criminal cases on automatic review or on appeal where the penalty imposed by the trial courts is either death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment are still forwarded to the Supreme Court by lower courts. Cases

 Furman v Georgia – Guidelines for determining “cruel and unusual” punishments: 1. 2. 3. 4.

punishment not be so sever as to degrade human dignity must not be applied arbitrarily must not be unacceptable to contemporary society must not be excessive

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 16 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

 People v Echegaray – the power of Congress to re-impose the death penalty is not subsumed under its plenary legislative power. It is subject to clear and compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.

 People v Mercado – Punishment is cruel and unusual if it involves torture or a lingering death and something more than the mere extinguishment of life.

 People v Vinuya – If an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the judge must still look into the evidence to see if the death penalty is the proper punishment. Section 20 – Non-Imprisonment for Debt General Rule: Imprisonment for debt by virtue of an oder in a civil proceeding is prohibited Exceptions: • if there is a crime arising from a contractual debt (fraudulent debt: estafa) and imposed in a proper criminal proceeding • Subsidiary Imprisonment – conversion of monetary indemnity imposed as part of a criminal penalty Section 21 – Double Jeopardy General Rule: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense Exceptions: • Same act violates two different statutes or results in two distinct offenses, prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution for the other. 4. Exception to the exception: if the act is punished by a law and an ordinance (two different statutes), conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act (Art III sec 21).

•

Supervening Events – after the first prosecution, a new face supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and constitutes a new and distinct offense.

◦ Example: Initial charge was physical injuries but when the injury developed into a more ◦

serious one (from a scar to a permanent deformity), which could not have been foreseen. Exception to the exception: If the exact nature of the injury could not have been discovered because of the incompetence of the physician (misdiagnosis), the supervening fact doctrine will not apply. If it is a proximate cause absent human error, it can be a supervening event.

Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: • Attached – first jeopardy must have attached prior to second one • Terminated – first jeopardy must have terminated • Second Offense – second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 17 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Attachment of Jeopardy Jeopardy of punishment attaches: • Upon a good indictment • Before a competent court (one with jurisdiction) • After arraignment • After plea When Jeopardy Does Not Attach • When plea is filed when court is not in session, it is not a valid plea, thus no jeopardy • After pleading guilty, the evidence amounts to complete self defense and the court acquits accused. The presentation of evidence of complete self defense amounted to a withdrawal of his original plea. • A defective complaint (before amendment) did not place the accused in first jeopardy • A motion to quash a valid information is a waiver of right against double jeopardy. This includes motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. • If the first court has no jurisdiction, first jeopardy cannot attach • When the accused had been acquitted after pre-trial, and no proper trial took place, double jeopardy did not attach. Termination of First Jeopardy 1. Acquittal 2. Final Conviction 3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused 4. Dismissal on the merits • • •

• • •

• •

Denial of the right to a speedy trial can be a dismissal on the merits and may amount to an acquittal if granted by the court. Verbal dismissals do not amount to termination of jeopardy. They are not final until written and signed by the judge. Cause of delays of the trial must be unreasonable to be dismissed on ground of violation of right to a speedy trial. Delays beyond the control of the prosecution and defense are not considered unreasonable. Dismissal of the court to give way to the filing of a proper complaint is not a dismissal on the merits of the case. Jeopardy did not terminate. If dismissal clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion, it is not a bar to the refiling of the case. Decisions of a Military Tribunal are merely recommendatory. The case does not terminate since it is a continuing process. Dismissal of a preliminary investigation does not terminate a case. Consenting to the provisional dismissal by the accused is a waiver of his right to the defense of double jeopardy.

Same Offense • One is identical with (or is an attempt or frustration of) the other OR necessarily includes the other. ◦ Ex: Physical injury is the same as attempted homicide for purposed of double jeopardy Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 18 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F. •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Offense need not be the same provided they flow from the same act.

Appeals General Rule: A judgment of acquittal is immediately final – even though the discharge was a result of the court's error (State v Rook) Exception: when prosecution has not been given due process. An appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal (not acquittal) shall not constitute double jeopardy if: 1. Dismissal is made upon motion or express consent of defendant 2. Dismissal is based on the merits of the case (not an acquittal) 3. Appeal is purely a question of law (ex: whether dismissal was correct or not?) A judgment of conviction is final when: 1. period of appeal has lapsed 2. sentence has been totally or partially served 3. there is express waiver of the right to appeal Note: A penalty higher than that of the original conviction could be imposed by the higher court. Section 22 – Bill of Attainder and Ex-post facto law General rule: Retroactive effect of penal laws are prohibited Exceptions: The retroactive effect is only applicable if it is favorable to the accused Note: Non-penal laws are not prohibited by the clause. It only covers penal laws. Definitions: Ex-post Facto Law 1. Law which makes an innocent action criminal before the passage of such law 2. Aggravates a crime than when it was committed 3. Inflicts a greater punishment than when it was committed 4. Requires less evidence in order to convict a defendant 5. Deprives an accused of some lawful protection to which he becomes entitled to 6. Shortening the prescription period of a crime Bill of Attainder • A legislative act which inflicts punishments without judicial trial (Cummings v Missouri). Elements 1. There is a law 2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable members of a group 3. Burden is imposed directly by law without judicial trial Cases

 Lacson v Executive Secretary – a law which “dilutes” the chances of a plaintiff to appeal, by Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 19 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

granting them one chance for appeal (from Sandiganbayan to Supreme Court) instead of the two-tiered appeal (from RTC to CA to SC), is not an ex-post facto law. The law is a substantive law on jurisdiction and not a penal one. The right to appeal is statutory in nature which can be regulated by law.

 Pascual v Board of Medical Examiners – A law is a penal law if it prescribes a burden equivalent to a criminal penalty (eg: disqualification from practicing a p0rofession) even if it is imposed in an administrative proceeding.

 Calder v Bull – A law on criminal procedure (eg: altering rules on evidence) can be an expost facto law.

 Bayot v Sandiganbayan - Suspension of public officers during a pending trail is not a penalty but merely a preventive measure. ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP Default Rule: Jus Sanguini* Exception: If the nation's laws specify jus soli citizenship * Note: Births given outside a jus soli country follow the jus sanguini rule on citizenship. If a child is born outside the US, he is a US citizen provided both parents are US citizens as well. Different rules and qualifications apply if only one parent is a US citizen. Definition  Personal membership in a political community  Possession of full civil and political rights  Imposes duty of allegiance to the political community Modes 1. 2. 3.

of Acquiring Jus Sanguinis – blood relationship Jus Soli – place of birth (embassies in foreign countries are not included) Naturalization

Natural Born Citizens General Rule: Citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire their citizenship Exception: Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship are deemed natural-born. (Art IV sec 1 and 2) Note: Requirement of electing Philippine citizenship applies only to legitimate children. Jus Sanguinis • Does not make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children • As long as one of the parents is Filipino, the child is a Filipino • If the mother had lost Philippine citizenship by the time of the birth of the child, the child has no right of election Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 20 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Naturalization Laws and Procedures 1. Judicial Process 2. Act of Legislation or a Presidential Decree 3. Mass Naturalization Law (Philippine Bill of 1902) 4. General Law: administrative process + presidential legislative process 5. RA 9139 – Administrative Naturalization Law Procedural Requirements 1. Declaration of intention 2. Filing of petition 3. Initial hearing and judgment 4. Probation period 5. Rehearing and final judgment RA 9139 – Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 Effects of the Naturalization of the: • Husband – the lawful alien wife and minor children may file for petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration. • Wife – only the minor children may file a petition but the alien husband will not be benefited. Repatriation • Recovery of original citizenship will depend on what is lost: either natural-born or naturalized citizenship • Courts have no jurisdiction over repatriation – only the local civil registry and Bureau of Immigration. • Effective date of repatriation is the date of application, not approval. Repatriation may be availed of when citizenship is lost due to: 1. Desertion of the armed forces 2. Service in the armed forces of allied forces during WWII 3. Service in the US armed forces at any other time 4. Political and economic necessity RA 9225 – Dual Citizenship Law • Retention of Philippine citizenship by natural born citizens who become citizens of a foreign country after effectivity of the act. • Those seeking elective or appointive office must renounce foreign citizenship • The doctrine of implied renunciation upon filing of a Certificate of Candidacy does not apply under RA 9225. Candidate must expressly renounce his foreign citizenship and allegiance. • Voting for dual citizens must meet requirements of Oversees Voters Act Cases

 Willie Yu v Defensor-Santiago – A person's actions can constitute implied renunciation of Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 21 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

his naturalized citizenship. Continuously declaring foreign citizenship in commercial documents, even after naturalization, is a renunciation of Philippine citizenship.

 Labo, Jr. v COMELEC – A foreign citizenship invalidly acquired is not the concern of the Philippines. As long as there is renunciation of Philippine citizenship, that citizenship is lost.

 Bengzon v Cruz – Repatriation is the recovery of the original citizenship. If what is lost is Naturalized Citizenship, what is recovered is Naturalized Citizenship. If what is lost is Natural-Born Citizenship, what is recovered is Natural-Born Citizenship.

 Aznar v COMELEC – Renunciation must be express in order that citizenship may be lost. An application for an alien certificate of registration is not tantamount to renunciation of Philippine Citizenship.

 Mercado v Manzano – the fact that respondent was holding an American Passport were just assertions of his American Citizenship before the termination of his American nationality. ARTICLE V – SUFFRAGE Qualifications 1. Citizens not otherwise disqualified by law 2. At least 18 years of age 3. Resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year 4. Resided in the place where they proposed to vote at least 6 months preceding the election Disqualifications 1. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer an imprisonment of not less than one year. Such person shall automatically re-acquire right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence. 2. Persons who violated his allegiance to the Republic 3. Insane or feeble-minded persons Overseas Absentee Voting Act – RA 9189 Qualified citizens abroad may vote for: 1. President 2. Vice President 3. Senators 4. Party List Representatives General Rule: Immigrants or permanent residents of foreign countries are disqualified Exceptions and conditions: 1. If voter executes an affidavit declaring that he or she shall resume actual permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of registration 2. Voter must not have applied for citizenship in another country by the time affidavit is executed 3. Failure to return will cause permanent disqualification to vote in absentia. Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 22 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Cases

 Akbayan v COMELEC – the right to suffrage is still subject to the State's power to regulate the act of voter's registration for the purpose of conducting honest and orderly elections.

 Ceniza v COMELEC – A law prohibiting voters in a city from voting provincial officials does not impose a substantial requirement that violates Art V sec 1. The law does not impose a burden as contemplated by Art V sec 1.

 Gonzales v COMELEC – A referendum is a consultative process and not an election. The voting age qualifications do not apply. ARTICLE XIII – SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Social Justice 2 principal activities: 1. More economic opportunities 2. Regulation of property and a more equitable distribution of wealth

 National Federation of Sugar Workers v Ovejera – when the law can be interpreted in more ways than one, an interpretation in favor of the underprivileged must be favored.

 Federation of Free Farmers v CA – the 13th month pay requirement under PD 851 is not applicable to a company already giving Christmas bonuses. Laws must be interpreted in favor of the underprivileged but not to the point that it does injustice to the employers. Injustice to the more affluent sectors of society must be avoided as much as injustice to labor and the poor.

 Astudillo v Board of Directors – Provisions on social justice do not legalize “squatting”. The State's solicitude for the destitute does not mean it should tolerate usurpations of property.

 Estrada v NLRC – a mere technicality (failure to follow a procedural requirement) is not a sufficient ground to reverse the decision against a laborer. It should yield to the constitutional demand for social justice. Labor

 Employers Confederation v National Wages and Productivity Commission – The Constitution has not fully embraced the concept of laissez faire. The Constitution is primarily a document of social justice but it also recognized the importance of the private sector.

 SSS v CA – The right to strike has gained constitutional stature but it is qualified by the phrase “in accordance with law”. The law currently denies the right to strike to SSS employees and to public school teachers.

 PLDT v NLRC – an employer may not be required to give separation pay when the employee is dismissed due to serious misconduct. Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 23 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

Agrarian Reform Objectives: 1. Efficient production 2. Equitable distribution of land 3. Just share in the fruits of the land Method of redistribution: 1. Voluntary sale 2. Expropriation and resale Theory behind agrarian reform: • Agrarian reform should unlock idle wealth hidden in land to improve the economy and the lives of the farmers. • The proceeds land owners receive should be invested in non-agricultural ventures and promote industrialization. • The industrialization shall generate employment and absorb farmworkers released from farms because of mechanization. Just compensation Land owners have the right to receive just compensation but the farmer will only pay the government what he can afford even if it is not equivalent to the amount paid to the land owner. Hence, it will be necessary for the State to subsidize the program.

 Vinzons-Magana v Estrella – Mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer ownership of the land. It merely evidences the qualification of the party to avail of the process for the acquisition of land ownership.

 Luz Farms v Secretary of Agrarian Reform – Agricultural land devoted to raising livestock is not included in the Agrarian Reform Law. The Constitutional Commission did not intend to include them.

 Association of Small Landowners v Secretary of Agrarian Reform – The law guarantees that landowners can retain a certain area of their land. The imposition of retention limits is an exercise of police power of the State. But when it comes to the deprivation of land, it is an exercise of eminent domain.

 Danan, et al. V CA – As long as the area to be retained does not exceed the retention limit of 5 hectares, a landowner's choice of the area must prevail. Urban Land Reform Eviction and demolition must be done with due process and in a just and humane manner People v Judge Leachon – for due process to be satisfied: • the unlawful occupation must be proven • the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is done Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 24 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F. •

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

no loss of lives, injuries or unnecessary loss of properties

Commission on Human Rights Members: 1. Chairman 2. 4 Members  Majority must be members of the Philippine Bar  All must be natural-born citizens Powers and Functions • Commission's power is only investigative. It has no prosecutorial power. • Limited to investigating human rights violations involving civil and political rights. • Socio-economic rights are not included but it may be included if the commission's scope is expanded in the future. • Protect the human rights of all persons within the Philippines as well as Filipinos residing abroad ARTICLE XIV – E.S.T.A.C.S. Education General Rule: Every citizen has the right to education Exceptions: The right is subject to fair and reasonable regulations. Imposing admission and academic requirements is a valid exercise of police power. Note: Schools also have the right to dismiss students for disciplinary reasons provided due process is observed. Characteristics: 1. Quality education 2. Affordable 3. Relevant to the needs of society Programs: • System of scholarship grants and student loan programs • Indigenous learning system • Out-of-school study programs Institutions and Academic Freedom: General Rule Educational institutions shall be owned by citizens of the Philippines or Corporations, which are at least 60% Filipino-owned.

Exception Those established by religious groups and mission boards

No educational institution shall be Schools for foreign diplomatic personnel and established exclusively for aliens and no their dependents group of aliens shall comprise more than 1/3 of the student population Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 25 of 26

ATENEO LAW SCHOOL 1E L.T.J.F.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II [DEAN BAUTISTA] 1st Semester S.Y. 2011-2012

All revenues are exempted from taxes

Revenues not used directly and exclusively for educational purposes are not exempted from taxes

Institutes of higher learning has the right to determine: a. who may teach b. what may be taught c. how it shall be taught d. who may be admitted to study

The courts may not interfere with the University's academic freedom unless there is clear evidence that the latter arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its judgment.

Cases

 Abra Valley College Inc v Aquino - “Exclusive use” includes “incidental use”. The school president's residence , which is part of the school building, qualifies under such “incidental use” thus exempted from taxes.

 Guingona, Jr. v Carague – the provision to give “highest priority to education” does not deprive Congress of the power to respond to other matters of national interest ARTICLE XV – THE FAMILY • •

• •

The State recognizes the family as the foundation of the nation. It recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and shall be protected by the State. This, however, is not an absolute prohibition for divorce. But any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.

Sources: Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary (2009 ed.). Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer (2011 ed.). Page 26 of 26