political law review 2 20081

8/11/2019 Political Law Review 2 20081

1/120

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW Atty. LARRY D. GACAYAN 2008

CHAPTER ICHAPTER IFUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE

STATE(Pol!" Po#"$%

1. Define:

&ol!" &o#"$---is the power vested inthe legislature ! the Constitution to"a#e$ ordain$ estalish all "anner ofwholeso"e and reasonale laws for thegood and welfare of the %tate and itspeople. &ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS.CITY MAYOR' )ly *+' +,-%

The asi' purposes of poli'e power are:/. to &$oot" t1" "3"$/l

#"l4/$"' !o4o$t /35 !o36"3"3!" o4

t1" &"o&l"7 (ASSOCIATION OF SMALLLANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY' +

SCRA *9*7 US VS. TORI:IO' + P1l.8

;. to &$oot" /35 &$"7 LOREN?O VS. DIRECTOR OFHEALTH' 0 P1l. ,@/&&$"1"35 /35

!o343" l"&"$< 3 / l"&$o


2/120


SCRA +,7 TAICA: OPERATORS VS.UINIO' ++, SCRA 8, %

5. to /3t/3 /35


3/120


'. ICH)/ F%. HERADEB$ 11Phil. 1199d. CHRCHI** F%. RA00ERTG$ ;Phil. 9>e. PE)P*E F%. P)4AR$ %CRA129@. G)T F%. IAC$ 1 %CRA 92

RESTITUTO YNOT VS. THEITERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT'

G.R. No. 99'M/$!1 20' +,8

Cru?$ 8.

0a'ts:1. )n 8anuar!$ 1$ 12>


4/120


said 'araaos are ver! useful to the wor#at the far"$ it is 'on'ededthat the E3e'utive )rder "eets the firsttest---- it has lawful su@e't.

ut does the law "eets the se'ond

re6uisite or test whi'h is lawful "ethodJ

E3e'utive )rder o. ;-A i"posesan asolute an not on the slaughtering of'araaos T ) THIER 4)FE4ET$providing that no 'araao regardless ofage$ se3$ ph!si'al 'ondition or purposeand no 'araeef shall e transported fro"one provin'e to another. The reasonale'onne'tion etween the "eans e"plo!edand the purpose sought to e a'hieved !the 6uestion "easure is "issing. +e donot see how the prohiition of the inter-

provin'ial transport 'an prevent theirindis'ri"inate slaughter 'onsidering thatthe! 'an e #illed an! where$ with no lessdiffi'ult! in one provin'e than in the other.)viousl!$ retaining a 'araao in oneprovin'e will not prevent their slaughterthere$ an! "ore than "oving the" toanother provin'e will "a#e it easier to #illthe" there.

The law is un'onstitutional e'auseit stru'# at on'e and poun'ed upon the

petitioner without giving hi" a 'han'e toe heard$ thus den!ing hi" the 'enturies-old guarantee of ele"entar! fair pla!.

%in'e the E3e'utive )rder in6uestion is a penal law$ then violationthereof should e pronoun'e not ! thepoli'e T G A C)RT )0 8%TICE$+HICH A*)E +)*D HAFE HAD THEATH)RITG T) I4P)%E THE PRE%CRIEDPEA*TG$ AD )*G A0TER TRIA* ADC)FICTI) )0 THE ACC%ED.

Also$ there is no reasonaleguidelines or ases of the Dire'tor ofAni"al Industr! or the Chair"an of theATI)A* 4eat Inspe'tion Co""ission inthe disposition of the 'araaos or 'araeefother than what the! "a! see fit whi'his ver! dangerous and 'ould result toopportunities for partialit! and ause$ andeven graft and 'orruption.

The E3e'utive )rder is$ therefore$invalid and un'onstitutional and not a

valid poli'e power "easure e'ause the4ETH)D E4P*)GED T) C)%ERFECARAA)% I% )T REA%)A*GECE%%ARG T) THE PRP)%E )0 THE*A+ AD$ +)R%E I% D*G)PPRE%%IFE. DE PR)CE%% I% FI)*ATEDECA%E THE )+ER )0 THE PR)PERTGC)0I%CATED I% DEIED THE RI/HT T)E HEARD I HI% DE0E%E AD I%

I44EDIATE*G C)DE4ED ADPI%HED. THE C)0ER4ET ) THEAD4II%TRATIFE ATH)RITIE% &li#e thepoli'e )0 THE P)+ER T) AD8D/E THE/I*T )0 THE %PP)%ED )00EDER I% AC*EAR ECR)ACH4ET )0 8DICIA*

0CTI)% AD 4I*ITATE% A/AI%T THED)CTRIE )0 %EPARATII) )0 P)+ER%.

Also$ there is undue delegation oflegislative power to the offi'ers "entionedtherein &Dire'tor of Ani"al Industr! andHead of the ational 4eat Co""issione'ause the! were given unli"iteddis'retion in the distriution of thepropert! 'onfis'ated.

#. TAMICA )PERAT)R% F%. )T$112 %CRA 92

l. ATI%TA F%. 8II)$ 1;%CRA ;2

MARY CONCEPCION:AUTISTA VS.ALFREDO UINIO' ET AL' +2 SCRA

*2,

0ernando$ C.8.

F/!t2prohiiting the use of private "otorvehi'les with H &Heav! Fehi'les and EH&E3tra Heav! Fehi'les on wee#-ends andholida!s fro" 1;: a.". %aturda!"orning to 9: a.". 4onda! "orning$ or1: a.". of the holida! to 9: a.". ofthe da! after the holida!. 4otor vehi'les ofthe following 'lassifi'ations are however$e3e"pted:

1. %----servi'e(;. T----Tru'#(. DP*--Diplo"ati'(


5/120


thus 'ontravenes the ENA* PR)TECTI)C*A%E( and

. The *)I denies the owners of Hand EH vehi'les of due pro'ess$ "orespe'ifi'all! of their right to use and en@o!

their private propert! and of their freedo"to travel and hold fa"il! gatherings$reunions$ outings on wee#-ends andholida!s$ while those not in'luded in theprohiition are en@o!ing unrestri'tedfreedo"(

'. The Cir'ular violates theprohiition against undue delegation oflegislative power e'ause the *)I doesnot i"pose the penalt! of 'onfis'ation.

HELD

1. It "ust e pointed out that the*)I was pro"ulgated to solve the oil 'risiswhi'h was esetting the 'ountr! at thatti"e. It was therefore a valid poli'e power"easure to ensures the 'ountr!Ose'ono"! as a result of spiralling fuelpri'es. In the interpla! of autistaOs rightto due pro'ess and the e3er'ise of poli'epower ! the %tate$ the latter "ust egiven leewa!. The poli'e power is intendedto pro"ote puli' health$ puli' "orals$puli' safet! and general welfare.

;. The petitionersO 'lai" that theirright to e6ual prote'tion was violated iswithout asis. This is so e'ause there is avalid 'lassifi'ation in this 'ase. Definitel!$Heav! and E3tra-Heav! vehi'les 'onsu"e"ore gasoline that the other #inds ofvehi'les and it is ut proper to regulatethe use of those whi'h 'onsu"es "oregasoline. If all the owner of H and EHvehi'les are treated in the sa"e fashion$or whatever restri'tions 'ast on so"e inthe group is held e6uall! inding on the

rest$ there is no violation of the e6ualprote'tion 'lause.

. The penalt! of "impounding"the vehi'le as e"odied in Cir'ular o. 2has no statutor! asis. Therefore$ it is notvalid eing an ultra vires.

". A%%)CIATI) )0 %4A***AD)+ER% F%. %ECRETARG )0A/RARIA RE0)R4$ 19 %CRA

%CRA 9o. FI**AEFA F%. CA%TAEDA$%epte"er ;1$ 12>

9-a. ot a valid e3er'ise of poli'e power

CITG /)FER4ET )0 NEB)CITG F%. ERICTA$ 1;; %CRA 92

CHAPTER IIDUE PROCESS

S"!to3 +NO PERSON SHALL :EDEPRIVED OF LIFE' LI:ERTY OR

PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

OF LAW' NOR SHALL ANY PERSON :E

DENIED EUAL PROTECTION OF THELAWS.

inds of Due Pro'ess:

a. sustantive due pro'ess---re6uires theintrinsi' validit! of the law in interferingwith the rights of the person to life$ liert!or propert!. In short$ it is to deter"inewhether it has a valid govern"entalo@e'tive li#e for the interest of the puli'as against "ere parti'ular 'lass.

. Pro'edural due pro'ess---one whi'hhears efore it 'onde"ns as pointed out! Daniel +ester.

Due pro'ess is a law whi'h hears efore it'onde"ns$ whi'h pro'eeds upon in6uir!and renders @udg"ent onl! after trial &PerDaniel +ester in the DARTMOUTHCOLLEGE CASE%

1. Re6uisites of 5@udi'ial due pro'ess7.

/. :ANCO ESPANOL VS.

PALANCA' * P1l. ,2+

R")


6/120


Contra't with the Philippine /eneralHospital 0oundation &P/H0I involving an*RTA propert! in Pasa! Cit! forP1;$. per "onth for ;9 !ears(;. )n 8une ;$12>$ the Third Divisionof the %upre"e Court ! a vote of -;affir"ed the 'onvi'tion of the petitioner

ut a'6uitted DA%(2. Petitioner then filed a 4otion forRe'onsideration and at the sa"e ti"epra!ed that her 4otion e heard ! the%upre"e Court en an' 'lai"ing that herright to due pro'ess of law$ othsustantive and pro'edural$ was violated:

a. as a result of the fa't that shewas 'onvi'ted as a result of the allegeddisparit! of the rentals agreed upon withP/H0I and the suse6uent su-lease

'ontra't etween P/H0I and TransnationalConstru'tion Corporation( and. the 0irst Division 'onvi'ted herafter 8usti'e /ar'hitorena dissolved the%pe'ial Division of 9 after a lun'h in aNue?on Cit! restaurant where the! agreedto 'onvi't her in one 'ase and a'6uit herin her other 'ases. The said "eeting wasattended ! another @usti'e who is not a

"e"er of the 0irst Division or the %pe'ialDivision in violation of the Rules of the%andigana!an whi'h re6uires thatsessions of the 'ourt shall e done onl! inits prin'ipal offi'e in 4anila and that onl!@usti'es elonging to the division should

@oin the delierations.

H"l5

The petitioner is here! a'6uitted.

1. The great disparit! etween the rentalpri'e of the lease agree"ent signed !the petitioner &P1;$. per "onthand the su-lease rental &P


7/120


!. D:P VS. CA' /3)/$y 2,'+,,,

5. MATUGUINA VS. CA' 2-*SCRA 9,0

". PEOPLE VS. CA' 2-2 SCRA92

4. AVIER VS. COMELEC' +99SCRA +,9

AVIER VS. COMELEC /.R. o.*- >2->1;$ %epte"er

;;$ 12>

FACTS

1. The petitioner Evelio 8avier and theprivate respondent Arturo Pa'ifi'ador were

'andidates in Anti6ue for the atasangPa"ansa ele'tion in 4a! 12>


8/120


the issue has een settled and de'ision isno longer possile a''ording to law. utthere are also ti"es when although thedispute has disappeared$ as in this 'ase$ itnevertheless 'ries out to e resolved.8usti'e de"ands that we a't$ then$ not

onl! for the vindi'ation of the outragedright$ though gone$ ut also for theguidan'e of and as a restraint upon thefuture.

. The %.C. held on the "ain issue thatin "a#ing the C)4E*EC the sole @udge ofall 'ontests involving the ele'tion$ returnsand 6ualifi'ations of the "e"ers of theatasang Pa"ansa and ele'tiveprovin'ial and 'it! offi'ials$ theConstitution intended to give it fullauthorit! to hear and de'ide these 'ases

fro" eginning to end and on all "atterrelated thereto$ in'luding those arisingefore the pro'la"ation of the winners.

The de'ision rendered ! the %e'ondDivision alone was therefore set aside asviolative of the Constitution. The 'aseshould have een de'ided "3 ;/3!.

'. Pre-pro'la"ation 'ontroversiese'a"e #nown and designated as su'honl! e'ause of %e'. 19 of the 12>

Ele'tion Code. The 12 Constitution'ould not have therefore een intended tohave divided 'ontests etween pre andpost pro'la"ation when that Constitutionwas written in 12.

d. The word 'ontests should not egiven a restri'tive "eaning( on the'ontrar!$ it should re'eive the widestpossile s'ope 'onfor"al! to the rulethat the words used in the Constitutionshould e interpreted lierall!. Ase"plo!ed in the 12 Constitution$ the

ter" should e understood as referring toan! "atter involving the title or 'lai" oftitle to an ele'tive offi'e$ "ade efore orafter the pro'la"ation of the winner$whether or not the 'ontestant is 'lai"ingthe offi'e in dispute.

e. There was also a denial of duepro'ess. )ne of the "e"ers of the%e'ond Division$ Co""issioner 8ose)pinion was a law partner of Pa'ifi'ador.He denied the "otion to dis6ualif! hi"

fro" hearing the 'ase. The Court hasrepeatedl! and 'onsistentl! de"andedthe 'old neutralit! of an i"partial @udgeas the indispensale i"perative of duepro'ess. To olster that re6uire"ent wehave held that the @udge "ust not onl! ei"partial ut "ust also appear to ei"partial as an added assuran'e to theparties that his de'ision will e @ust.

0E*ICIA) and 4E*ECI)-HERRERA'!o3!)$$3

All ele'tion 'ontests involving

"e"ers of the atasang Pa"ansa "uste de'ided ! the Co""ission onEle'tions en an' under %e's. ; and ofArt. MII-C of the 12 Constitution. Thesese'tions do not distinguish etween pre-pro'la"ation and post-pro'la"ation'ontests nor etween 'ases and'ontests.

. A?UL VS. CASTRO' +** SCRA

2+1. PADERANGA VS. A?URA'

+*- SCRA 2--

. DAVID VS. AUILI?AN' ,9SCRA 0B. LOREN?ANA VS. CAYETANO'

8 SCRA 98 ($"


9/120


ail. The sa"e was not resolved despiteseveral "otions filed ! the petitioner toresolve the sa"e.

)n De'e"er 1$ 122$ 'ounsel for thepetitioner$ ATTG. PHI*IP %I/0RID 0)RT$

re'eived a noti'e fro" the respondent@udge notif!ing hi" of the pro"ulgation ofthe de'ision in this 'ase despite the fa'tthat the prose'ution and the defense havenot presented their eviden'e in 'ourt.

)n De'e"er 1>$ 122$ the respondent@udge issued a De'ision 'onvi'ting thepetitioner of rape and senten'ed to suffera penalt! of REC*%I) PERPETA.

Issue:

+hether or not the petitioner was deniedhis right to due pro'ess of law.

Held:

In order that an a''used in a 'ri"inalpro'eedings is dee"ed to have een giventhe right to due pro'ess of law$ thefollowing re6uisites "ust e 'o"plied withefore a de'ision is rendered:

1. the 'ourt or triunal tr!ing the

'ase is 'lothed with @urisdi'tion to hearand deter"ine the "atter efore it(;. that @urisdi'tion was lawfull!a'6uired ! it over the person of thea''used(. that the a''used is given theopportunit! to e heard( and


10/120


their involve"ent in an offensive a'tion'ausing in@uries to petitioner 8a"es Gapand three other student "e"ers ofDo"ino *u3 0raternit!.

)n 4ar'h ;2$ 1229$ 8a"es Gap

was eating his dinner alone in 4anang=sRestaurant near *a %alle$ when heoverheard two "en ad-"outhing andapparentl! angr! at Do"ino *u3. Heignored the 'o""ents of the two. +henhe arrived at his oarding house$ he"entioned the re"ar#s to his two otherrods while wat'hing television. These tworods had earlier finished eating theirdinner at 4anang=s. Then$ the three$together with four other persons wenta'# to 4anang=s and 'onfronted the twowho were still in the restaurant. !

ad"ission of respondent unguung in histesti"on!$ one of the two was a "e"erof the Tau /a""a Phi 0raternit!. Therewas no ru"le or ph!si'al violen'e then.

After this in'ident$ a "eeting was'ondu'ted etween the two heads of thefraternit! through the inter'ession of the%tudent Coun'il. The Tau /a""a Phi0raternit! was as#ing for an apolog!.5Kailangan ng apolog!7 in the words ofrespondent Aguilar. ut no apolog! was

"ade.

)n 4ar'h ;9$ 1229$ Ten "inutes eforehis ne3t 'lass at : p.".$ 8a"es Gapwent out of the 'a"pus using theEngineering /ate to u! 'andies a'rossTaft Avenue. As he was aout to re-'rossTaft Avenue$ he heard heav! footsteps athis a'#. Eight to ten gu!s were runningtowards hi". He pani'#ed. He did not#now what to do. Then$ respondentunguung pun'hed hi" in the head withso"ething heav! in his hands 5parang

#nu'#les.7 Respondents Reverente and*ee were ehind Gap$ pun'hing hi".Respondents unguung and Faldes whowere in front of hi"$ were also pun'hinghi". As he was l!ing on the street$respondent Aguilar #i'#ed hi". Peopleshouted( guards arrived( and the group ofatta'#ers left. Gap 'ould not re'ogni?e theother "e"ers of the group who atta'#edhi". +ith respe't to respondent Papio$4r. Gap said 5hindi ko nakita ang mukhaniya, hindi ko nakita sumuntok siya.7

+hat 4r. Gap saw was a long haired gu!also running with the group.

The "auling in'idents were a result of afraternit! war. The vi'ti"s$ na"el!:petitioner 8a"es Gap and Dennis Pas'ual$Eri'son Cano$ and 4i'hael Pere?$ are"e"ers of the 5Do"ino *u3 0raternit!$7while the alleged assailants$ private

respondents Alvin Aguilar$ 8a"es Paulunguung$ Ri'hard Reverente andRoerto Faldes$ 8r. are "e"ers of 5Tau/a""a Phi 0raternit!$7 a rival fraternit!.

The ne3t da!$ 4ar'h $ 1229$ petitionerGap lodged a 'o"plaint;KL with theDis'ipline oard of D*% 'harging privaterespondents with 5dire't assault.7 %i"ilar'o"plaintsK>L were also filed ! DennisPas'ual and Eri'son Cano against Alvin*ee and private respondents Faldes andReverente. Thus$ 'ases entitled 5De LaSalle University and College of St. Benildev. Alvin Aguilar (ABBS!"#$%&$'%,)ames *aul Bungu+ung (AB*S!"#&--', o+ert . /aldes, )r. (BSBSA*!"#&%'01, Alvin Lee

(2DD"#-1&&%, i3hard everente (AB!45"#$%06 and !alvin A. *apio (AB!45"#&%$&&67 were do'#eted asDis'ipline Case o. 2


11/120


their proposed testimony L

finding private respondents guilt!. The!were "eted the supre"e penalt! ofauto"ati' e3pulsion$K12Lpursuant to CHED

)rder o. KL

+here a part! was afforded anopportunit! to parti'ipate in thepro'eedings ut failed to do so$ he 'annot'o"plain of deprivation of due pro'ess.2KL

oti'e and hearing is the ulwar# ofad"inistrative due pro'ess$ the right towhi'h is a"ong the pri"ar! rights that"ust e respe'ted even in ad"inistrativepro'eedings.1K>L The essen'e of duepro'ess is si"pl! an opportunit! to eheard$ or as applied to ad"inistrative

pro'eedings$ an opportunit! to e3plainone=s side or an opportunit! to see#re'onsideration of the a'tion or ruling'o"plained of.11K2L %o long as the part! isgiven the opportunit! to advo'ate her'ause or defend her interest in due'ourse$ it 'annot e said that there wasdenial of due pro'ess.1;KL

8KL 4u?man v. ;ational University, /.R.o. *->;>>$ 8ul! 11$ 12>$ 1$ ;


12/120


A for"al trial-t!pe hearing is not$ at allti"es and in all instan'es$ essential to duepro'ess it is enough that the parties aregiven a fair and reasonale opportunit! toe3plain their respe'tive sides of the'ontrovers! and to present supporting

eviden'e on whi'h a fair de'ision 'an eased.1K1L 5To e heard7 does not onl!"ean presentation of testi"onial eviden'ein 'ourt one "a! also e heard throughpleadings and where the opportunit! to eheard through pleadings is a''orded$there is no denial of due pro'ess.1


13/120


S S The s'hool rules governingdis'ipline and the 'orresponding san'tionstherefor "ust e 'learl! spe'ified anddefined in writing and "ade #nown to thestudents and,or their parents orguardians. %'hools shall have the

authorit! and prerogative to pro"ulgatesu'h rules and regulations as the! "a!dee" ne'essar! fro" ti"e to ti"eeffe'tive as of the date of theirpro"ulgation unless otherwise spe'ified.

d. The i"position of dis'iplinar!san'tions re6uires oservan'e ofpro'edural due pro'ess. Due pro'ess indis'iplinar! 'ases involving students :

a. need not entail pro'eedings and

hearing si"ilar to those pres'ried fora'tions and pro'eedings in 'ourt of@usti'e(

. the pro'eedings "a! e su""ar!(

'. 'ross-e3a"ination is not anessential part thereof.

ut the %.C. said that the following"ini"u" standards "ust e "et to

satisf! the de"ands of pro'edural duepro'ess:

1. the students "ust e infor"ed inwriting of the nature and 'ause of an!a''usation against the"(

;. the! shall have the right to answerthe 'harges against the"$ with theassistan'e of 'ounsel( . the! shall e infor"ed of theeviden'e against the"(

2d. +A**E4 4ARITI4E %ERFICE%F%. *RC$ ; %CRA 1>f. %T)*T-IE*%E F%. *RC$ ;1> see#s to end ;!ears of govern"ent regulation of thedownstrea" oil industr!.

The fa'ts:

1. Prior to 121$ no govern"entagen'! was regulating the oil industr!.ew pla!ers were free to enter the oil"ar#et without an! govern"entinterferen'e. There were four &9$ onl! three & oil'o"panies were left operating in the'ountr!. These are: CA*TEM$ 0I*IPIA%%HE** and P)C(. In 4a!$ 12>$ Pres. Cora?onA6uino signed E3e'utive )rder o. 1;'reating the EER/G RE*AT)RG )ARD

to regulate the usiness of i"porting$e3porting$ shipping$ transporting$pro'essing$ refining$ "ar#eting anddistriuting energ! resour'es 5+HE+ARRATED AD )*G +HE P*ICECE%%ITG RENIRE%7. The oard wase"powered to 5fi3 and regulate the pri'esof petroleu" produ'ts and other related"er'handise(. In 4ar'h$ 122$ Congressena'ted RA >1> deregulating the )ilIndustr! not later than 4ar'h$ 122. The

law re6uires that the i"ple"entation ofthe regulation$ shall as far as pra'ti'alee "ade at a ti"e +HE THE PRICE% )0CRDE )I* AD PETR)*E4 PR)DCT%I THE +)R*D ARE DEC*II/ AD+HE THE EMCHA/E RATE )0 THE PE%)I RE*ATI) T) THE % D)**AR( I%%TA*E(>. )n 0eruar! >$ 122$ E3e'utive)rder o. ; was issued ! President0idel Ra"os i"ple"enting fullderegulation ) THE /R)D THAT THE)P%0 0D HA% EE DEP*ETED(

2. The petitioners 6uestioned the'onstitutionalit! of RA >1> on thefollowing grounds:

a. %e'tion 9 of RA>1> violates the e6ual prote'tion 'lauseof the Constitution(. The i"position of different tariff rates does not deregulatethe oil industr! and even ars the entr! ofother pla!ers in the oil industr! utinstead effe'tivel! prote'ts the interest of

the oil 'o"panies with e3isting refineries.Thus$ it runs 'ounter to the o@e'tive ofthe law 5to foster a trul! 'o"petitive"ar#et7( The in'lusion of %e'. 9 KLproviding for tariff differential violates%e'tion ; K1L of Art. FI of the 12>Constitution whi'h re6uires ever! law tohave onl! one su@e't whi'h should ee3pressed in the title thereof(

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW +-+-


17/120


18/120


19/120


A "onopol! is a privilege or pe'uliaradvantage vested in one or "ore personsor 'o"panies$ 'onsisting of the e3'lusiveright or power to 'arr! on a parti'ularusiness or trade$ "anufa'ture a

parti'ular arti'le or 'ontrol the sale or thewhole "ar#et stru'ture in whi'h one oronl! a few fir"s do"inate the total salesof a produ't or servi'e. )n the otherhand$ a 'o"ination in restraint of trade isan agree"ent or understanding etweentwo or "ore persons$ in the for" of'ontra't$ trust$ pool$ holding 'o"pan!$ forthe purpose of undul! restri'ting'o"petition$ "onopoli?ing trade and'o""er'e in a 'ertain 'o""odit!$'ontrolling its produ'tion$ distriution andpri'e or otherwise interfering with

freedo" of trade without statutor!authorit!. Co"ination in restraint oftrade refers to "eans while "onopol!refers to the end.

Respondents aver that the


20/120


. Ta3i'a )perators vs. )T$%epte"er $l2>; < %CRA 2$ 0is'alAlfane$ designated to review the 'ase$issued a Resolution affir"ing the finding ofa pri"a fa'ie 'ase against the petitionersut ruled that a 'ase of 4urder for ea'h ofthe #illing of the four vi'ti"s and aph!si'al in@uries 'ase for infli'ting gunshotwound on the survivor e filled insteadagainst the suspe'ts. Thereafter$ fourseparate infor"ations to that effe't werefiled with the RTC of 4asate with no ailre'o""ended.

)n ove"er ;1$ 12>2$ a "otionfor 'hange of venue$ filed ! thepetitioners was granted ! the %C. Itordered that the 'ase "a! e transferredfro" the RTC of 4asate to the RTC of4a#ati.

Petitioners then "oved thatanother hearing a 'ondu'ted todeter"ine if there reall! e3ists a pri"afa'ie 'ase against the" in the light ofdo'u"ents showing re'antations of so"e

witnesses in the preli"inar! investigation.The! li#ewise filed a "otion to order thetrans"ittal of initial re'ords of thepreli"inar! investigation 'ondu'ted ! the"uni'ipal @udge of arsaga of 4asate.These "otions were however denied !the 'ourt e'ause the prose'ution hadde'lared the e3isten'e of proale 'ause$infor"ations were 'o"plete in for" insustan'e $ and there was no defe't on itsfa'e. Hen'e it found it @ust and proper torel! on the prose'utors 'ertifi'ation inea'h infor"ation.

ISSUE

+hether or not a @udge "a! issuea warrant of arrest without ail ! si"pl!rel!ing on the prose'utions 'ertifi'ationand re'o""endation that a proale'ause e3istsJ

Held: -----

1. The @udge 'o""itted a graveause of dis'retion.

In the 'ase of Pla'er vs. Fillanueva$the s' ruled that a @udge "a! rel! uponthe fis'alOs 'ertifi'ation of the e3isten'e ofa proale 'ause and on the asis thereof$issue a warrant of arrest. However$ the

'ertifi'ation does not ind the @udge to'o"e out with the warrant of arrest. Thisde'ision interpreted the sear'h andsei?ure provision of the 12Constitution. nder this provision$ the@udge "ust satisf! hi"self of the

e3isten'e of proale 'ause efore issuinga warrant of order of arrest. If on the fa'eof infor"ation$ the @udge finds noproale 'ause$ he "a! disregard thefis'alOs 'ertifi'ation and re6uire thesu"ission of the affidavits of witness toaid hi" at arriving at a 'on'lusion as tothe e3isten'e of a proale 'ause. Thishas een the rule sin'e .% vs. )'a"poand A"arga vs. Aas.

;. In the 'ase of %oliven vs.4a#asiar$ de'ided under the 12>

Constitution$ the Court noted that theaddition of the word personall! after theword deter"ined and the deletion of thegrant of authorit! ! the 12Constitution to issue warrants to otherrespondent offi'ers as to "a! eauthori?ed ! law does not re6uire the@udge to personall! e3a"ine the'o"plainant and his witness in hisdeter"ination of proale 'ause for theissuan'e of a warrant of arrest.+hat theConstitution unders'ores is the e3'lusive

and personal responsiilit! of the issuing@udge to satisf! hi"self of the e3isten'e ofproale 'ause. 0ollowing estalisheddo'trine and pro'edures$ he shall:

&1 personall! evaluate thereports and the supporting do'u"entssu"itted ! the fis'al regarding thee3isten'e of proale 'ause and$ on theasis thereof$ issue a warrant of arrest(

&; If on the asis thereof hefinds no proale 'ause$ he "a! disregard

the fis'alOs report and re6uire thesu"ission of supporting affidavits ofwitnesses to aid hi" in arriving at a'on'lusion as to the e3isten'e of proale'ause.

. The 'ase of People vs.Honorale Enri6ue . Inting reiterates thefollowing do'trines:

&1 The deter"ination ofproale 'ause is a fun'tion of the @udge.

It is not for the Provin'ial 0is'al orProse'utor nor for the Ele'tion %upervisorto as'ertain. )nl! the @udge alone "a#esthis dete"ination.

&; The preli"inar! in6uir!"ade ! the prose'utor does not ind the@udge. It "erel! assist hi" to "a#e thedeter"ination of proale 'ause. The

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2-2-


27/120


@udge does not have to follow what theprose'utorOs present to hi". ! itself$ theprose'utorOs 'ertifi'ation of proale'ause is ineffe'tual. It is the report$ theaffidavits$ the trans'ripts of stenographi'notes$ and all other supporting do'u"ents

ehind the prose'utorOs 'ertifi'ation whi'hare "aterial in assisting the @udge to"a#e his deter"ination.

& Preli"inar! in6uir! shoulde distinguished fro" the preli"inar!investigation proper. +hile the for"ersee#s to deter"ine proale 'ause for theissuan'e of warrant of arrest$ the latteras'ertains whether the offender should eheld for trial or e released.

9Rules on Cri"inal Pro'edure$ effe'tive on8anuar! 1$ 12>9.

9. In the present 'ase$ therespondent @udge relies solel! on the'ertifi'ation of the prose'utor. Consideringthat all the re'ords of the investigation arein 4asate$ he has not personall!

deter"ined the e3isten'e of proale'ause. The deter"ination was "ade !the provin'ial prose'utor. The'onstitutional re6uire"ent had not eensatisfied.

The re'ords of the preli"inar!investigation 'ondu'ted ! the 4uni'ipalCourt of 4asate and reviewed ! therespondent 0is'al were still in 4asatewhen the respondent 0is'al issued thewarrant of arrest against the petitioners.There was no asis for the respondent

@udge to "a#e his personal deter"inationregarding the e3isten'e of proale 'ausefro" the issuan'e of warrant of arrest as"andated ! the Constitution. He 'ouldnot have possil! #nown what hastranspired in 4asate as he had nothingut a 'ertifi'ation. Although the @udgedoes not have to personall! e3a"ine the'o"plainant and his witnesses &for theprose'utor 'an perfor" the sa"efun'tions as 'o""issioner for ta#ing ofeviden'e there should e a report and

ne'essar! do'u"ents supporting the0is'alOs are 'ertifi'ation. All of theseshould e efore the @udge.

1. A"arga vs. Aas$ 2> Phil. 2 1-a. ;th Centur! 0o3 vs. CA$ 1$4ar'h 1$ 12>2

SOLIVEN VS. MAASIAR' +- SCRA

*,*

The word &"$


28/120


Alfredo *i" on the strength of a warrantof arrest issued ! the respondent @udge$H). 8AI4E %A*ABAR$ Regional trialCourt$ ran'h 1$ Nue?on Cit! inCri"inal Case o. 2-12


29/120


does indeed 'harge the petitioner with a'ri"e defined and punished ! theRevised Penal Code: %I4P*E REE**I).

. +as the petitioner 'harged without a'o"plaint having een initiall! filed and,or

preli"inar! investigation 'ondu'tedJ There'ord shows that a 'o"plaint for si"plereellion against petitioner was filed !the I Dire'tor and that ased on thestrength of said 'o"plaint a preli"inar!investigation was 'ondu'ted ! therespondent prose'utors 'ul"inating in thefiling of the 6uestioned infor"ation.THERE I% )THI/ IHERET*GIRRE/*AR )R C)TRARG T) *A+ I0I*I/ A/AI%T A RE%P)DET AIDCT4ET 0)R A )00E%EDI00ERET 0R)4 +HAT I% CHAR/ED I

THE IITIAT)RG C)4P*AIT$ I0+ARRATED G THE EFIDECEDEFE*)PED DRI/ THE PRE*I4IARGIFE%TI/ATI).

'. The petitioner 'lai"s that the warrantissued is void e'ause it was issued arel!one hour and twent! "inutes after the'ase was raffled to the respondent @udgewhi'h 'ould hardl! gave hi" suffi'ientti"e to personall! go over the volu"inousre'ords of the preli"inar! investigation.

Also$ the petitioner 'lai"s that therespondent @udge issued the warrant forhis arrest without first personall!deter"ining the e3isten'e of proale'ause ! e3a"ining under oath oraffir"ation the 'o"plainant and hiswitnesses$ in violation of Art. III$ %e'tion;$ of the Constitution. This Court hasalread! ruled that it is not unavoidaledut! of the @udge to "a#e su'h a personale3a"ination$ it eing suffi'ient that hefollows estalished pro'edure !PER%)A**G EFA*ATI/ THE REP)RT

AD THE %PP)RTI/ D)C4ET%4ITTED G THE PR)%ECT)R.4EREG ECA%E %AID RE%P)DET8D/E HAD +HAT %)4E 4I/HTC)%IDER )*G A RE*ATIFE*G RIE0PERI)D +ITHI +HICH T) C)4P*G +ITHTHAT DTG $ /IFE% ) REA%) T)A%%4E THAT HE HAD )T$ )R C)*D)T HAFE$ %) C)4P*IED( )R D)E%THAT %I/*E CIRC4%TACE %00ICET) )FERC)4E THE *E/A* PRE%4PTI)THAT )00ICIA* DTG HA% EE

RE/*AR*G PER0)R4ED.

d. Petitioner also 'lai"s that he is deniedof his 'onstitutional right to ail. In thelight of the CourtOs affir"ation ofHernande? as appli'ale to petitionerOs'ase$ and of the logi'al and ne'essar!'orollar! that the infor"ation against hi"should e 'onsidered as 'harging onl! the

'ri"e of si"ple reellion whi'h is ailaleefore 'onvi'tion$ THAT 4%T )+ EACCEPTED A% A C)RRECT PR)P)%ITI).

)TE%:

This "ight e useful also in !ourRe"edial *aw.

+as a petition for Haeas Corpusefore the %upre"e Court the appropriatevehi'le for asserting a right to ail orvindi'ating its denialJ

The %upre"e Court held that the'ri"inal 'ase efore the respondent @udgeis the nor"al venue for invo#ing thepetitionerOs right to have provisionalliert! pending trial and @udg"ent. The

'orre't 'ourse was for the petitioner toinvo#e that @urisdi'tion ! filing a petitionto e ad"itted to ail$ 'lai"ing a right toail per se or ! reason of the wea#nessof the eviden'e against hi". )*G A0TERTHAT RE4EDG +A% DEIED G THE TRIA*C)RT %H)*D THE REFIE+8RI%DICTI) )0 THE %PRE4E C)RTE IF)ED$ AD EFE THE$ )T+ITH)T 0IR%T APP*GI/ T) THE C)RT)0 APPEA*% I0 APPR)PRIATE RE*IE0 +A%A*%) AFAI*A*E THERE.

Even assu"ing that the petitionerOspre"ise that the infor"ation 'harges anon-e3istent 'ri"e would not e3'use or@ustif! his i"proper 'hoi'e of re"edies.nder either h!pothesis$ the oviousre'ourse would have een a "otion to6uash rought in the 'ri"inal a'tionefore the respondent @udge.

g. +arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures--when valid or not. Is )peration ap#ap

validJ

Read:

PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE' G.R. No.80,' )3"' +,,2' 2+0 SCRA +9

+arrantless sear'h andsei?ure

Cru?$ 8.

0a'tsW------

1. )n August >$ 12>$ the +estern Poli'eDistri't re'eived a telephone 'all fro" aninfor"er that there were three suspi'ious-loo#ing persons at the 'orner of 8uan *unaand orth a! lvd.$ in Tondo$ 4anila(

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 2,2,


30/120


;. +hen the surveilan'e tea" arrivedtherein$ the! saw the a''used loo#ingfro" side to side and holding hisado"en. The! appro'hed these personsand identified the"selves as poli'e"ent

that is wh! the! tried to ran awa! e'auseof the other law"en$ the! were unale toes'ape(

. After their arrest$ a .> 'al. %"ith and+essor revolver was 'onfis'ated fro" thea''used and several da!s later$ aninfor"ation for violation of PD 1> wasfiled against hi"(

and wassenten'ed to suffer re3lusion perpetua

ased on the alleged gun as the prin'ipaleviden'e. Hen'e this auto"ati' appeal.

Issue:------

+as there a valid warrantlesssear'h and sei?ureJ

Held:-----

There is no 6uestion that eviden'eotained as a result of an illegal sear'h orsei?ure is inad"issile in an! pro'eedingfor an! purpose. That is the asoluteprohiition of Arti'le III$ %e'tion K;L$ ofthe Constitution. This is the 'eleratede3'lusionar! rule ased on the @ustifi'ationgiven ! 8usti'e *earned Hand that onl!in 'ase the prose'ution$ whi'h itself'ontrols the sei?ing offi'ials$ #nows that it'annot profit ! their wrong will thewrong e repressed.

%e'tion 9$ Arti'le 11 of the Rulesof Court provides:

%e'. 9. Arrest without warrant(when lawful.- A pea'e offi'er or privateperson "a!$ without warrant$ arrest aperson:

&a +hen$ in his presen'e$ theperson to e arrested has 'o""itted$ isa'tuall! 'o""itting$ or is atte"pting to'o""it an offense(

& +hen an offense has in fa't@ust een 'o""itted$ and he haspersonal #nowledge of fa'ts indi'atingthat the person to e arrested has'o""itted it( and

&' +hen the person to e arrestedis a prisoner who has es'aped fro" a

penal estalish"ent or pla'e where he isserving final @udg"ent or te"poraril!'onfined while his 'ase is pending$ or hases'aped while eing transferred fro" one'onfine"ent to another.

3 3 3

+e have 'arefull! e3a"ined thewording of this Rule and 'annot see howwe we 'an agree with the prose'ution.

Par. &' of %e'tion 9 is oviousl!inappli'ale as 4engote was not anes'apee fro" a penal institution when hewas arrested. +e therefore 'onfineourselves to deter"ining the lawfulnessof his arrest under either Par. &a or Par.& of this %e'tion.

Par. &a re6uires that the person earrested &1 after he has 'o""itted orwhile he is a'tuall! 'o""itting or is atleast atte"pting to 'o""it an offense$ &;in the presen'e of the arresting offi'er.

These re6uire"ents have not eenestalished in the 'ase at ar. At the ti"eof the arrest in 6uestion$ the a''used-appellant was "erel! loo#ing fro" side toside and holding his ado"en$

a''ording to the arresting offi'ersthe"selves. There was apparentl! nooffense that had @ust een 'o""itted orwas eing a'tuall! 'o""itted or at leasteing atte"pted ! 4engote in thiepresen'e.

The %oli'itor /eneral su"its thatthe a'tual e3isten'e of an offense wasnot ne'essar! as long as 4engoteOs a'ts'reated a reasonale suspi'ion on thepart of the arresting offi'ers and indu'edin the" the elief that an offense had

een 'o""itted and that a''used-appellant had 'o""itted it. The 6uestionis$ +hat offenseJ +hat offense 'ouldpossil! have een suggested ! a personloo#ing fro" side to side and holdinghis ado"en and in apla'e not e3a'tl!forsa#en.

These are 'ertainl! not sinistera'ts. And the setting of the arrest "adethe" less so$ if at all. It "ight have eendifferent if 4engote had een

apprehended at an unhol! hour and in apla'e where he had no reason to e$ li#ea dar#ened alle! at oO'lo'# in the"orning. ut he was arrested at 11: inthe "orning and in a 'rowded streetshortl! after alighting fro" a passenger@eep with his 'o"panion.He was nots#ul#ing in the shadows ut wal#ing in the'lear light of da!. There was nothing

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW *0*0


31/120


32/120


sear'h and sei?ure that renderedinad"issile the eviden'e the! hadinvalidl! sei?ed.

This should e a lesson to otherpea'e offi'ers. Their i"pulsiveness "a!

e the ver! 'ause of the a'6uittal ofpersons who deserve to e 'onvi'ted$es'aping the 'lut'hes of the law$e'ause$ ironi'all! enough$ it has noteen oserved ! those who aresupposed to enfor'e it.

W1"3 ll"/l /$$"


33/120


not @ustif! the warrantless sear'h. Thealleged reports that the said union offi'e iseing used ! the union offi'ers for illegala'tivities does not @ustif! their a'ts ofarging into the said offi'e without the'onsent of the union offi'ers and without a

sear'h warrant. If indeed there wassurveillan'e "ade$ then the! should haveapplied for a sear'h warrant.

The ruling in People vs. Andre 4artiis not appli'ale here e'ause in 4arti$ a'ri"inal 'ase$ the issue was whether ana't of a private individual$ allegedl! inviolation of one=s 'onstitutional rights "a!e invo#ed against the %tate. In otherwords$ the issue in 4arti is whether theeviden'e otained ! a private persona'ting in his private 'apa'it! without the

parti'ipation of the %tate$ is ad"issile.

*. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

ANDRE MARTIG.R. NO. 8+-+' /3)/$y +8' +,,+

+arrantless %ear'h and sei?ure! a private person

idin$ 8.

0ACT%:

Andre 4arti and his 'o""on-lawwife$ %hirle! Re!es went to 4anilaPa'#aging and E3port 0orwarders to sendfour &'onstitution is al"ost verati" fro" the

nited %tates 'onstitution$ the %C "a!'onsider % 0ed. %C 'ases as li#ewisedo'trinal in this @urisdi'tion. Hen'e$ in %'ases$ the 'onstitutional provision againstunreaso"ale sear'hes and sei?ure wasintended as a restraint upon the a'tivitiesof the sovereign authorit! and )Tintended against private persons. If asear'h was initiated ! a private personthe provision does not appl! sin'e it onl!pros'ries govern"ent a'tion. This view issupported ! the delierations ! the12> Constitutional Co""ission.

In short$ the prote'tion againstunreasonale sear'hes and sei?ures'annot e e3tended to a'ts 'o"itted !private individuals so as to ring it withinthe a"it of alleged unlawful intrusion.

Case at ar will show that it was8o Re!esX initiative that perpetrated thesear'h. He opened the pa'#ages and too#the sa"ples to I. All the I agents didwas to oserve and loo# in plain sight.

This did not 'onvert it to a sear'h as'onte"plated ! the 'onstitution.

;. Ges$ sin'e the sear'h was valid$ theeviden'e fro" therein is ad"issileeviden'e.

Art.III K;L$ on the ad"issiilit! ofeviden'e in violation of the right against

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ****


34/120


unreasonale sear'hes and sei?ures$li#ewise applies onl! to the govern"entand its agen'ies and not to privatepersons.

&.%. 'ases 'ited: urdeau v.

4'Dowell &;9 us %CRA


35/120


telephoned Capt. Pal"era that the! wouldreturn to the Philippines on )'toer .0ro" Hong#ong$ the two pro'eeded to/uang?hou in "ainland China. There$appeallant *o Ho +ing ought si3 & 'ansof tea.Tia saw these ags when the!

were opened for e3a"ination. Thatevening$ the! went to *o Ho +ingOs roo"and he saw two other "en with hi". )newas fi3ing the tea ags$ while the otherwas urning a sustan'e on a pie'e ofalu"inu" foil using a lighter. Appellant *oHo +ing @oined the se'ond "an andsniffed the s"o#e e"itted ! the urningsustan'e. +hen Tia as#ed *o Ho +ingwhat 'argo the! would ring to 4anila$the latter replied that the! would eringing Chinese drugs.

The ne3t da! en route to 4anila$'usto"s e3a"iners inspe'ted the ags'ontaining the tin 'ans of tea. %in'e theags were not 'losel! e3a"ined$ appellant*o Ho +ing and Tia were 'leared. In4anila$ The! were "et ! *i" ChengHuat. Appelant *o Ho +ing and Tiaoarded a ta3i fro" the airport and loadedtheir luggage in the ta3iOs 'o"part"ent.*i" Cheng Huat followed the" in anotherta3i.

4ea"while$ a tea" 'o"posed !Capt. Pal"era positioned the"selves instrategi' areas around the airport. TheCI% "en who first saw *o Ho and Tiafollowed the". Along I"elda Avenue$ theCI% 'ar overtoo# the ta3i ridden ! *o Ho+ing and Tia $ for'ing the ta3i driver tostop his vehi'le. The CI% tea" as#ed theta3i driver to open the aggage'o"part"ent. The CI% tea" as#edper"ission to sear'h their luggage.

A tin 'an of tea was ta#en out of

the 'o"part"ent. %gt. Ca!a!a of theCI% pried the lid open and pressed it inthe "iddle to pull out the 'ontents.Cr!stalline white powder res"ling'rushed alu" 'a"e out. %uspe'ting the'r!stalline powder to e a dangerousdrug$ he had the three travelling agsopened for inspe'tion. All the agsthreshed out a total of si3 tin 'ans. Tiaand appellant were ta#en to the CI%head6uarters for 6uestioning. 4eanwhile$the se'ond ta3i 'arr!ing *i" Cheng Huat

sped in atte"pt to es'ape. However$ the!were later 'aptured.

%a"ples fro" the ag testedpositive for "eta"pheta"ine. The threesuspe'ts were indi'ted for violating Art.III$ se'.19 of the Dangerous Drug A't.Appellant *o Ho +ing and *i" Cheng Huatwere senten'ed to suffer life i"prison"ent

and to pa! a fine of P;9$ ea'h.Re!naldo Tia was dis'harged as a statewitness. The trial 'ourt gave full 'reden'eto the testi"onies of govern"ent agentssin'e the presu"ption of regularit! in theperfor"an'e of offi'ial duties were in their

favor.

I%%E%:----------

1. +as the warrantless sear'hvalidJ

;. Are the effe'ts ta#en ad"issileas eviden'eJ

HE*D:-----

1. This is a 'ase of sear'h on a"oving vehi'le whi'h is one of the well-#nown e3'eptions to the valid warrantlesssear'h and sei?ure. To stilol get a sear'hwarrant fro" a @udge would allow thea''used go s'ot-free.

;. %in'e the sear'h and sei?ure arevalid$ the eviden'e otained is ad"issileas eviden'e in an! pro'eeding.

. %ei?ure of goods 'on'ealed toavoid duties,ta3es &Falid

a. Papa vs. 4ago$ ;; %CRA>9. Pa'is vs. Pa"aran$ 9%CRA 1'. HIB) F%. CA$ ;9%CRA 91d. PE)P*E F%. NE$ ;9%CRA ;1


36/120


landlad! 'ould not give a valid 'onsent tothe sear'h of a roo" o''upied ! atenant. %aid tenant hi"self should givethe 'onsent in order to e valid. Thedo'trine in *ope? vs. Co""issioner to theeffe't that it 'ould e given ! an!

o''upant of a hotel roo" eing rented !the respondent is dee"ed aandonedd. VEROY VS. LAYAGUE' 2+0SCRA ,. &If the owner of the houseallowed the poli'e"en to enter his housee'ause the! are sear'hing for reelsoldiers ut when inside the house$ the!instead sei?ed an unli'ensed firear"$there is no 'onsent to a warrantlesssear'h

. %T)P AD 0RI%.a. People vs. 4engote$

8une$ 122;. PE)P*E F%. P)%ADA%$1>> %CRA ;>>'. 4AA*I*I F%. PE)P*E$)'toer 2$ 122. &The poli'e"en sawseveral suspi'ious loo#ing "en at dawnwho ran when the! went near the". Asthe poli'e"en ran after the"$ anunli'ensed firear" was 'onfis'ated. Thesear'h is validd. 4A*ACAT F%. CA$ ;>%CRA 192. &4ere suspi'ions not suffi'ient

to validate warrantless arrest

-. EDDIE GUA?ON' ET AL. VS. MA.GEN. RENATO DE VILLA' ET AL.' GR

NO. 8008' /3)/$y *0' +,,0

+arrantless sear'hes(?onings and saturation drives%e'tion 1$ Art. FII of the Constitution

/utierre?$ 8r.$ 8.

0a'ts:

T1< < / &"tto3 4o$ P$o1;to3

#t1 &$"l3/$y 3B)3!to3 to &$o1;tlt/$y /35 &ol!" o44!"$< 4$o

!o35)!t3 A$"/l t/$"t o33


37/120


the Constitution is ver! 'lear as e3plainedin Roan vs. /on?ales$ 1 andCentur! 0o3 vs. Court of Appeals$ 1>. This proale'ause "ust e shown to e within thepersonal #nowledge of the 'o"plainant orthe witnesses he "a! produ'e and notased on "ere hearsa!. &P. F%. %G 8C)$

< PHI*. ( A*FAREB F%. C0I$ < PHI*.( % F%. ADDI%)$ ;> PHI*. 9.

In his affidavit$ 4a@or Di"ag"aliwde'lared that he has een infor"ed thate"esio Prudente has in his 'ontrol andpossession the firear"s and e3plosiveesdes'ried therein$ and that he hasverified the report and found it to e afa't. )n the other hand$ *t. Angelesde'lared that as a result of 'ontinuoussurveillan'e for several da!s$ the!gathered infor"ation=s fro" verified

sour'es that the holders of said firear"sand e3plosives are not li'ensed t possessthe". It is 'lear fro" the foregoing thatthe appli'ant and his witness HAD )PER%)A* )+*ED/E )0 THE 0ACT%AD CIRC4%TACE% whi'h e'a"e theasis for issuing the 6uestioned sear'hwarrant$ ut a'6uired #nowledge thereofonl! through infor"ation fro" othersour'es or persons.

Despite the fa't that 4a@or

Di"ag"aliw stated in his affidavit that heverified the infor"ation he had earlierre'eived and found it to e a fa't$ GETTHERE I% )THI/ I THE REC)RD T)%H)+ )R IDICATE H)+ AD +HE%AID APP*ICAT FERI0IED THE EAR*IERI0)R4ATI) ACNIRED G HI4 A% T)8%TI0G HI% C)C*%I). He "ight have'larified this point if there had eensear'hing 6uestions and answers$ utthere were none. In fa't$ the re'ords !ieldno 6uestions and answers$ whethersear'hing or not$ vis-a-vis the said

appli'ant.

In A*FAREB F%. C0I$ < PHI*. $ itwas held that the following test "ust e'o"plied with in an appli'ation for sear'hwarrant or in a supporting depositionased on personal #nowledge or not-

The true test of suffi'ien'! of adeposition or affidavit to warrant issuan'eof a sear'h warrant is whether it wasdrawn in a "anner that per@ur! 'ould e

'harged thereon and the affiant e heldliale for da"age 'aused. The oathre6uired "ust refer to the truth of thefa'ts within the personal #nowledge of theappli'ant of a sear'h warrant and,or hiswitnesses$ not of the fa'ts "erel!reported ! a person who" one 'onsidersto e reliale.

Tested ! the aove standards$ theallegation of the witness$ *t. Angeles$ donot 'o"e up to the level of fa'ts ased onhis personal #nowledge so "u'h so thathe 'annot e held liale for per@ur! for

su'h allegations in 'ausing the issuan'e ofthe 6uestioned sear'h warrant.

esides$ respondent @udge did not ta#ethe deposition of the appli'ant as re6uired! the Rules of Court. As held in Roan vs./on?ales$ 1


40/120


e3pli'itl! des'ried the offense: illegalpossession of firear"s and a""unitionsunder PD 1>.

d. CIRC*AR ). 12 )0 THE %PRE4EC)RT "erel! provides for a guideline$

departure fro" whi'h would notne'essaril! affe't the validit! of the sear'hwarrant provided the 'onstitutionalre6uire"ents are 'o"plied with.

a. HERT +E F%. DE *E)$;>&Depositions of the appli'ants andwitnesses should e atta'hed to there'ord of the 'ase . Corro vs. *ising$ 1 %CRA 9. olas'o vs Pano$ 1 1. P. vs. urgos$ %epte"er1 11. P. vs. A"innudin G Ahni$ 8ul!$12>> 1;. Ponsi'a vs. Ignalaga$ 8ul!1$12> &+hen the state"ents in theaffidavits of witnesses are "eregeneralities$ "ere 'on'lusions of law$ andnot positive state"ents of parti'ular a'ts$the warrant is not valid

1. Aer'a vs. Fer$ April 19$12>>;. Panganian vs. Cesar$ 192 %CRA922. PED) F%. CA$ ove"er 1$122. &+hen the 6uestions as#ed to theappli'ant for a sear'h warrant was pre-t!ped$ the sa"e is not valid sin'e there'ould have een no sear'hing 6uestions

@. +arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures--when valid or not.

Read:

+. RICARDO VALMONTE VS. GENRENATO DE VILLA' GR No.

8*,88' S"&t";"$ 2,' +,8,

+arrantless sear'hes and sei?ures(

validit! of 'he'#points

Padilla$ 8.

0a'ts:

1. )n 8anuar! ;$ 12>$ the ationalCapital Region Distri't Co""and &CRDCwas a'tivated with the "ission of'ondu'ting se'urit! operations within itsarea of responsiilit! for the purpose of"aintaining pea'e and order. As part of itsdut! to "aintain pea'e and order$ theCRDC installed 'he'#points in variousparts of Falen?uela$ 4etro 4anila.

Petitioners 'lai" that e'ause of these'he'#points$ the residents of Falen?uela$44 are worried of eing harassed and of

their safet! eing pla'ed at the aritrar!$'apri'ious and whi"si'al disposition of the"ilitar! authorities "anning the'he'#points 'onsidering that their 'arsand vehi'les are eing su@e'ted toregular sear'hes and 'he'#-ups$ espe'iall!at night or dawn$ without the enefit of asear'h warrant and,or 'ourt order.

;. )n 8ul! 2$ 12>> at dawn$ theapprehensions of the residents ofFalen?uela in'reased e'ause en@a"in

Parpon$ the suppl! offi'er of the4uni'ipalit! of Falen?uela was gunneddown in 'old lood ! the "ilitar! "en"anning the 'he'#points for ignoring orrefusing to su"it hi"self to the'he'#point and for 'ontinuing to speed offinspite of several warning shots fired inthe air.

Issue:

+hether or not the e3isten'e of said'he'#points as well as the periodi'

sear'hes and sei?ures "ade ! the"ilitar! authorities without sear'h warrantvalidJ

Held:

PetitionersO 'on'ern for their safet!and apprehension at eing harassed !the "ilitar! "anning the 'he'#points arenot suffi'ient grounds to de'lare the'he'#points as per se illegal.

ot all sear'hes and sei?ures areprohiited. Those whi'h are reasonaleare not foridden. A reasonale sear'h isnot to e deter"ined ! an! fi3ed for"ulaut is to e resolved a''ording to the fa'tsof ea'h 'ase.

+here$ for e3a"ple$ the offi'er "erel!draws aside the 'urtain of a va'ant vehi'le

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW 9090


41/120


whi'h is par#ed on a puli' fair grounds&People vs. Case$ 12 4+ ;>2$ or si"pl!loo#s into a vehi'le &%tate vs. /aina$ 2%E ;$ or flashes a light therein &Rowlandvs. Co""onwealth$ ;92 %+ $ these donot 'onstitute unreasonale sear'h.

The setting up of 'he'#points inFalen?uela$ 4etro 4anila "a! e'onsidered as se'urit! "easure toeffe'tivel! "aintain pea'e and order andto thwart plots to destaili?e thegovern"ent. In this 'onne'tion$ the Court"a! ta#e @udi'ial noti'e of the shift touran 'enters and their suurs of theinsurgen'! "ove"ent$ so 'learl! refle'tedin the in'reased #illings in 'ities of poli'eand "ilitar! "en ! PAOs sparrowunits$ not to "ention the aundan'e of

unli'ensed firear"s.

ET+EE THE IHERET RI/HT )0THE %TATE T) PR)TECT IT% EMI%TECEAD PR)4)TE P*IC +E*0ARE AD AIDIFIDA*O% RI/HT A/AI%T A+ARRAT*E%% %EARCH +HICH I%H)+EFER REA%)A*G C)DCTED$THE 0)R4ER %HA** PREFAI*.

True$ the "anning of these'he'#points ! the "ilitar! is sus'eptile

of ause ! the "en in unifor"$ in thesa"e "anner that all govern"ental poweris sus'eptile to ause. T $ AT THEC)%T )0 )CCA%I)A* IC)FEIECE$DI%C)40)RT AD EFE IRRITATI) T)THE CITIBE$ THE CHECP)IT% DRI/THE%E A)R4A* TI4E% ARE PART )0THE PRICE +E PAG 0)R A )RDER*G%)CIETG AD PEACE0* C)44ITG.

0inall!$ it "ust e e"phasi?ed that on8ul! 1$ 12>>$ the "ilitar! 'he'#points in4etro 4anila were te"poraril! lifted and a

review and refine"ent of the rules in the'ondu't of the poli'e and "ilitar! "anningthe 'he'#points upon order of the CRDCChief.

Cru? and %ar"iento$ 88.$ dissenting:

The land de'laration ! the "a@orit!that individual rights "ust !ield to thede"ands of national se'urit! ignores thefa't that the ill of Rights was intendedpre'isel! to li"it the authorit! of the %tate

even if asserted on the ground of nationalse'urit!.

RE%)*TI) ) THE 4)TI) 0)RREC)%IDERATI)$ 8E 19$ 122Fer! I"portant:

The %upre"e Court in its Resolution ofthe 4otion for Re'onsideration dated 198une$ 122$ held that "ilitar! and poli'e'he'#points are not illegal as these"easures to prote't the govern"ent andsafeguards the lives of the people. The

'he'#points are legal as where thesurvival of the organi?ed govern"ent is onthe alan'e$ or where the lives and safet!of the people are in grave peril. However$the %upre"e Court held further that the"ilitar! offi'ers "anning the 'he'#points"a! 'ondu't FI%A* %EARCH )*G$ )T)DI*G %EARCH.

Read also the RE%)*TI)) THE 4)TI) 0)RREC)%IDERATI) dated 8E 19$ 122$1>9 %CRA 9

Read also:

1-a. i?al Alih vs. 4en. Castro,)une &,$#06

1-. P s. Cendana$ )'toer1$ 122

1-'. P. vs. Castiller$ August$ 122

1-d. P. vs. )laes$ 8ul! $122 ;. Papa vs. 4ago$ ;; %CRA >9

. Roldan vs. Ar'a$ 9 %CRA 9. Pa'is vs. Pa"aran$ 9 %CRA 1 . *ope? vs. Co""isioner$ 9 %CRA . P vs. Cru?$ 19 %CRA 19 >. olas'o vs. Pano$ 1


42/120


Read:

1. Harve! vs. 4iria"Defensor-%antiago$ 8une ;$12>>;. 4oreno vs. Fivo$ ; %CRA9;

. *i" vs. Pon'e de *eon$ %CRA ;22191$4ar'h 12

1-. /ar'ia-Padilla vs. Enrile$1;1%CRA $

1221 ;. 4orales vs. Pon'e Enrile$ 1;1

%CRA 9>;-a. P vs. urgos$ 1>;-i. PE)P*E F%. 8ATA$ ; %CRA

9; &u!-ust operation . %e'. $ Rule 11$ 12>9 Rules onCri"inal Pro'edure$ as a"ended

n. Effe't posting ail or entering a pleaduring the arraign"ent$ if the arrest wasillegal. &The alleged illegalit! of the arrestis dee"ed waived upon posting of theond ! the a''used

PEOPLE VS. GALVE?' * SCRA 29-PEOPLE VS. GALVE?' * SCRA 29-

4endo?a$ 8.

T1" &ol!"/3 /$$"


43/120


o . Penalt! for illegal arrest

Read:

Palon vs. AP)*C)4$ 4a! ;>$12>2

p. 8udi'ial pronoun'e"ents on illegall!sei?ed eviden'e$ 1 %CRA

6. The e3'lusionar! rule$199 %CRA


44/120


RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL' AND?EAL IN THE PURSUIT OF CRIMINALS

CANNOT ENNO:LE THE USE OFAR:ITRARY METHODS THAT THE

CONSTITUTION ITSELF A:HORS.

CHAPTER IV

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

%e'tion . The priva'! of 'o""uni'ationand 'orresponden'e shall e inviolalee3'ept upon lawful order of the 'ourt$ orwhen puli' safet! or order re6uiresotherwise as pres'ried ! law.

An! eviden'e otained in violationof this or the pre'eding se'tion shall e

inad"issile for an! purpose in an!pro'eeding.Read:

Read:

)TE: Appli'ale provisions of the Hu"an%e'urit! A't,Anti-Terroris" *aw$ Repuli'A't o. 2;$ Approved on 4ar'h $ ;and effe'tive on 8ul! 19$ ; &This *awshall e auto"ati'all! suspended one &1"onth efore and two &; "onths after

the holding of an! ele'tion

Please oserve the pro'edure in otainingtheT1" W/$$/3t =o$ O$5"$> o4

S)$6"ll/3!"' not found in the 12>Philippine Constitution.

%RFEI**ACE )0 %%PECT% ADITERCEPTI) AD REC)RDI/ )0C)44ICATI)% )0 %%PECT% )RCHAR/ED )0 TERR)RI%4

Se!tion ). %urveillan'e of

suspe'ts and inter'eption and re'ording of'o""uni'ations. The provisions of RA


45/120


in the pre"ises or to 'hallenge$ if he orshe intends to do so$ the legalit! of theinterferen'e efore the Court of Appealswhi'h issued said written order. Thewritten order of the authori?ing division ofthe 'ourt of Appeals shall spe'if! the

following:

The identit!$ su'h as na"e

and address$ if #nown$ of the 'harged ofsuspe'ted persons whose'o""uni'ations$ "essages$'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or spo#en orwritten words are to e tra'#ed down$tapped$ listened to$ inter'epted orre'orded and$ in 'ase of radio$ ele'troni'$or telephone &whether wireless orotherwise 'o""uni'ations$ "essages$'onversations$ dis'ussions$ or spo#en orwritten words$ the ele'troni' trans"issions!ste"s or the telephone nu"ers to etra'#ed down$ tapped$ listened to$inter'epted$ and re'orded and theirlo'ations if the person suspe'ted of the'ri"e of terroris" or 'onspira'! to 'o""itterroris" is not full! #nown$ su'h personshall e su@e't to 'ontinuous surveillan'eprovided there is reasonale ground to doso( The identit! &na"e and

address$ and the poli'e or law

enfor'e"ent organi?ation of the"e"ers of his tea" @udi'iall! authori?edto tra'# down$ tap$ listen to$ inter'ept$and re'ord the 'o""uni'ations$"essages$ 'onversations$ dis'ussions$ orspo#en or written words( The offense or offenses

'o""itted$ or eing 'o""itted$ or soughtto e prevented( and The length of ti"e whi'h

the authori?ation shall e used or 'arriedout.

Se!tion# $*# Effe'tive Period of8udi'ial Authori?ation. An! authori?ationgranted ! the authori?ing division of the'ourt of AppealsVshall onl! e effe'tivefor the length of ti"e spe'ified in thewritten order of the authori?ing division ofthe Court of Appeals$ whi'h shall note3'eed da!s fro" the date of re'eipt ofthe written order of the authori?ingdivision of the 'ourt of Appeals ! theappli'ant poli'e or law enfor'e"entoffi'ial.

The CA "a! e3tend or renew thesaid authori?ation for another non-e3tendile period$ whi'h shall not e3'eed da!s fro" the e3piration of the originalperiodVThe e3-parte appli'ation forrenewal has een dul! authori?ed ! theAnti-terroris" Coun'il in writing.

If no 'ase is filed within the -da!period$ the appli'ant poli'e or lawenfor'e"ent offi'ial shall i""ediatel!notif! the person su@e't of thesurveillan'e$ inter'eption$ and re'ording of

the ter"ination of the said surveillan'e$inter'eption and re'ording. KPenalt! to ei"posed on the poli'e offi'ial who fails toinfor" the person su@e't of surveillan'eof the ter"ination of the surveillan'e$"onitoring$ inter'eption and re'ordingshall e penali?ed to 1 !ears and 1 da!to 1; !ears.

Se!tion $+. Evidentiar! Falue ofDeposited 4aterials. An! listened to$inter'epted$ and re'orded'o""uni'ations$ "essages$

'onversationsV+HICH HAFE EE%ECRED I FI)*ATI) )0 THEPERTIET PR)FI%I)% )0 THI% ACT$%HA** A%)*TE*G )T E AD4I%%I*EAD %A*E A% EFIDECE A/AI%TAG)DG I AG 8DICIA*$ NA%I-8DICIA*$ *E/I%*ATIFE$ )RAD4II%TRATIFE IFE%TI/ATI)$INIRG$ PR)CEEDI/$ )R HEARI/.

UDICIAL AUTHORI?ATION TO

EAMINE :AN DEPOSITS'

ACCOUNTS' AND RECORDS OFSUSPECTED OR CHARGED

TERRORISTS

%e'tion ;. @udi'ial authori?ationre6uired to e3a"ine an# deposits$a''ounts and re'ords.

The @usti'es of CA designated asspe'ial 'ourt to handle anti-terroris"'ases after satisf!ing the"selves of thee3isten'e of proale 'ause in a hearing'alled for that purpose that:

A person 'harged with or

suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"( )f a @udi'iall! de'lared and

outlawed terrorist organi?ation or group ofpersons( )f a "e"er of su'h

@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawedorgani?ation$ asso'iation or group ofpersons$ "a! authori?e in writing an!poli'e or law enfor'e"ent offi'er and the

"e"ers of his tea" dul! authori?ed inwriting ! the anti-terroris" 'oun'il to:1. e3a"ine or 'ausethe e3a"ination of$ the deposits$pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$ assets$ andre'ords in a an# or finan'ial institution(and



46/120


;. gather or 'ause thegathering of an! relevant infor"ationaout su'h deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trusta''ounts$ assets$ and re'ords fro" a an#or finan'ial institution. The an# orfinan'ial institution shall not refuse to

allow su'h e3a"ination or to provide thedesired infor"ation$ when so ordered !and served with the written order of theCourt of Appeals.

Se!# '%. Appli'ation to e3a"inedeposits$ a''ounts and re'ords.

The written order of the CAauthori?ing the e3a"ination of an#deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$assets and re'ords:

A person 'harged with orsuspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"( )f a @udi'iall! de'lared and


@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawedorgani?ation$ asso'iation or group ofpersons$ in a an# or finan'ial institution-

-%HA** )*G E /RATED G THE

ATH)RIBI/ DIFI%I) )0 THE CAP) A EM-PARTE APP*ICATI) T)THAT E00ECT )0 A P)*ICE )R *A+E0)RCE4ET )00ICIA* who has eendul! authori?ed ! the Anti-Terroris"Coun'il to file su'h e3-parte appli'ationand upon e3a"ination under oath oraffir"ation of the appli'ant and hiswitnesses he "a! produ'e to estalish thefa'ts that will @ustif! the need and urgen'!of e3a"ining and free?ing the an#deposits$ pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$assets and re'ords:

)f A person 'harged with or

suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"( )f a @udi'iall! de'lared and


@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawedorgani?ation$ asso'iation or group ofpersons.

Se!tion ,+# Evidentiar! value ofdeposited an# "aterials.- An!infor"ation$ data$ e3'erpts$ su""aries$notes$ "e"oranda$ wor# sheets$ reportsor do'u"ents a'6uired fro" thee3a"ination of the an# deposits$

pla'e"ents$ trust a''ounts$ assets andre'ords of:

A person 'harged with or

suspe'ted of the 'ri"e of terroris" or

'onspira'! to 'o""it terroris"( )f a @udi'iall! de'lared and


@udi'iall! de'lared and outlawedorgani?ation$ asso'iation or group ofpersons$

-whi'h have een se'ured inviolation of the provisions of this A't$ shallasolutel! not e ad"issile and usale aseviden'e against an!od! in an! @udi'ial$6uasi-@udi'ial$ legislative or ad"inistrativeinvestigation$ in6uir!$ pro'eeding orhearing.

1. PE)P*E F%. CAA*NIT)$%epte"er 12$ ;$ 9; %CRA


47/120


usurpation of the legislative powers of theCongress of the Philippines(;. The appropriation of puli'funds for the i"ple"entation of the saidA) is un'onstitutional sin'e Congress hasthe e3'lusive authorit! to appropriate

funds for su'h e3penditure( and. The A) violates the 'iti?en=sright to priva'! prote'ted ! the ill ofRights of the Constitution.

Held:

1. The A) estalishes a s!ste" ofidentifi'ation that is all-en'o"passing ins'ope$ affe'ts the life and liert! of ever!0ilipino 'iti?ens and foreign residents andtherefore$ it is supposed to e a lawpassed ! Congress that i"ple"ents it$

not ! an Ad"inistrative )rder issued !the President. Ad"inistrative Power$whi'h is supposed to e e3er'ised ! thePresident$ is 'on'erned with the wor# ofappl!ing poli'ies and enfor'ing orders asdeter"ined ! proper govern"entalorgans. It enales the President to fi3 aunifor" standard of ad"inistrativeeffi'ien'! and 'he'# the offi'ial 'ondu't ofhis agents. Pres'inding fro" the foregoingpre'epts$ A) > involves a su@e't thatis not appropriate to e 'overed ! an

Ad"inistrative )rder. An ad"inistrativeorder is an ordinan'e issued ! thePresident whi'h relates to spe'ifi' aspe'tsin the ad"inistrative operation of thegovern"ent. It "ust e in har"on! withthe law and should e for the sole purposeof i"ple"enting the law and 'arr!ing outthe legislative poli'!. The su@e't of A)> therefore is e!ond the power of thePresident to issue and it is a usurpation oflegislative power.

;. The A) li#ewise violates the right to

priva'! sin'e its "ain purpose is toprovide a 5'o""on referen'e nu"er toestalish a lin#age a"ong 'on'ernedagen'ies through the use of I)4ETRIC%TECH)*)/G. io"etr! is the s'ien'e ofthe appli'ation of statisti'al "ethods toiologi'al fa'ts( a "athe"ati'al anal!sisof a iologi'al data. It is the 'onfir"ationof an individual=s identit! through afingerprint$ retinal s'an$ hand geo"etr! orfa'ial features. Through the PR$ thegovern"ent offi'es has the 'han'e of

uilding a huge and for"idaleinfor"ation ase through the ele'troni'lin#age of the files of ever! 'iti?en. Thedata$ however$ "a! e gathered forgainful and useful govern"ent purposes(ut the e3isten'e of this vast reservoir ofpersonal infor"ation 'onstitutes a 'overtinvitation to "isuse$ a te"ptation that

"a! e too great for so"e of ourauthorities to resist.

0urther$ the A) does not even tells us in'lear and une6uivo'al ter"s how theseinfor"ations gathered shall e handled. It

does not provide who shall 'ontrol anda''ess the data and under what'ir'u"stan'es and for what purpose.These fa'tors are essential to safeguardthe priva'! and guarant! the integrit! ofthe infor"ation. The 'o"puter lin#agegives other govern"ent agen'ies a''essto the infor"ation. GET$ THERE ARE )C)TR)*% T) /ARD A/AI%T *EAA/E)0 I0)R4ATI)%. +HE THE ACCE%%C)DE )0 THE C)TR)* PR)/RA4% )0THE PARTIC*AR C)4PTER %G%TE4 I%R)E$ A ITRDER$ +ITH)T 0EAR

)0 %ACTI) )R PEA*TG$ CA 4AE%E )0 THE DATA 0)R +HATEFERPRP)%E$ )R +)R%E$ 4AIP*ATE THEDATA %T)RED +ITHI THE %G%TE4.

A) o. > is un'onstitutionalsin'e it falls short of assuring thatpersonal infor"ation gathered aout ourpeople will e used onl! for spe'ifiedpurposes there! violating the 'iti?en=sright to priva'!.

I*%A/ 4AG) ) F%.EMECTIFE %ECRETARG EDARD)ER4ITA$ ET A*.$ April 12$ ; 8une ;$;

:AYAN MUNA VS. EECUTIVESECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA' ET

AL.' A&$l +,' 200- )3" 20' 200-

Carpio$ 8.

President /loria 4a'apagal-Arro!o issuedPresidential Pro'la"ation o.


48/120


ased on the )ple ruling$ thepetitioners 'lai"ed that Pro'la"ation o.


49/120


"andates that$ 5no one shall +e su+7e3tedto ar+itrary interferen3e


50/120


the right to priva'! of finan'ialtransa'tions.

nder the present 'ir'u"stan'es$ thealleged ano"alies in the PHI*C)4%AT$PHC and P)TC$ ranging in "illions ofpesos$ and the 'onspiratorial parti'ipationof the PC// and its offi'ials are!o&"ll3 $"/

Read:

:AGUIO MIDLAND COURIER

CECILLE AFA:LE VS. COURT OFAPPEALS RAMON LA:O' R.' 999

SCRA 28 =No6";"$ 2' 2009>

F$""5o o4 E&$"


51/120


5In and )ut of aguio7 "ade thefollowing 'o""ents:

5)f all the 'andidates for 4a!or ofaguio Cit!$ *ao has the "osti"ponderales aout hi". People would

as#: 5'an he read and write7J +h! is healwa!s tal#ing aout his 8apanese father-in-lawJ Is he reall! a 8apanes %enator or aarrio apitanJ Is it true that he will sendP1>4 aid to aguioJ %o"eod! wanted toput an advertise"ent of *ao in the4idland Courier ut was refused e'ausehe has not !et paid his a''ount of the lastti"e he was a 'andidate for Congress. +ewill a''ept all advertise"ents for hi" if hepa!s his old a''ount first.7

;. In the sa"e 'olu"n$ Ce'ille Afale

wrote the following 'o""ents in her8anuar! 1$ 12>> 'olu"n at the Courier:

5I heard that the QDu"pt! in theEgg= is 'a"paigning for Cortes. ot fair.%o"e real do'tors are also us!'a"paigning against *ao e'ause he hasnot also paid their "edi'al servi'es withthe". %in'e he is donating "illions heshould also settle his s"all dets li#e thereportedl! insignifi'ant a"ount of P;$onl!. If he wins$ several tea'hers were

signif!ing to resign and leave aguioforever$ and Pangasinan will e the fran'a-li6ua of aguio.7

. As a result of the aove arti'les$Ra"on *aor$ 8r. filed a 'o"plaint forDa"ages efore the regional trial Courtof aguio Cit! as he 'lai"ed said arti'leswere lielous. He li#ewise filed a separate'ri"inal 'o"plaint efore the )ffi'e of theCit! Prose'utor of aguio ut wasdis"issed(

> ele'tions$ whi'h he a'tuall! did. Inline with the do'trine in )R8A* F%. CA$1 %CRA 1$ that Qit is also not suffi'ientthat the offended part! re'ogni?ed hi"selfas the person atta'#ed or defa"ed$ ut it"ust e shown that at least a rdperson'ould identif! hi" as the o@e't of thelielous puli'ation=$ the 'ase should edis"issed sin'e *ao utterl! failed todispose of this responsiilit!.;. *ao 'lai"s that the petitioners'ould not invo#e 5puli' interest7 to @ustif!the puli'ation sin'e he was not !et a

puli' offi'ial at that ti"e. This argu"entis without "erit sin'e he was alread! a'andidate for Cit! "a!or of aguio. Assu'h$ the arti'le is still within the "antleof prote'tion guaranteed ! the freedo"of e3pression provided in the Constitutionsin'e it is the puli'=s right to e infor"edof the "ental$ "oral and ph!si'al fitness

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW ++


52/120


of 'andidates for puli' offi'e. This wasre'ogni?ed as earl! as the 'ase of % F%.%EDA)$ 1< Phil. > K122L and the'ase of E+ G)R TI4E% F%. %**IFA$ .%. ;9< where the % %upre"eCourt held:

5Vit is of the ut"ost 'onse6uen'ethat the people should dis'uss the'hara'ter and 6ualifi'ations of 'andidatesfor their suffrages. The i"portan'e to the%tate and to so'iet! of su'h dis'ussions isso vast$ and the advantages derived sogreat$ that the! "ore than 'ounteralan'ethe in'onvenien'e of private personswhose 'ondu't "a! e involved$ ando''asional in@ur! to the reputations ofindividuals "ust !ield to the puli'welfare$ although at ti"es su'h in@ur!

"a! e great. The puli' enefit fro"puli'it! is so great and the 'han'e ofin@ur! to private 'hara'ter so s"all$ thatsu'h dis'ussion "ust e privileged. 5

Clearl!$ the 6uestioned arti'les'onstitute fair 'o""ent on a "atter ofpuli' interest as it dealt with the'hara'ter of the private respondent whowas running for the top ele'tive post inaguio Cit! at that ti"e.

2. PA12ITO 3# SA4IDAD 3S#CO5E2EC6

/.R. ). 2>>$ 8anuar!;2$ 122

0reedo" of e3pression and of the press&ote: nani"ous en an' de'ision

4edialdea$ 8.

0a'ts:1. )n )'toer ;$ 12>2$ RA $ entitled

A ACT PR)FIDI/ 0)R A )R/AICACT 0)R THE C)RDI**ERA AT))4)%RE/I) was ena'ted into law(

;. Pursuant to said law$ the Cit! of aguioand Provin'es of enguet$ Ara$ 4t.Provin'e$ Ifugao and alinga-Apa!ao$ all'o"prising the autono"ous region shallta#e part in a pleis'ite originall!s'heduled for De'e"er ;$ 12>2 ut wasreset to 8anuar! $ 122 spe'ifi'all! forthe ratifi'ation or re@e'tion of the said a't(

. ! virtue of the 12> Constitution andthe )"nius Ele'tion Code &P >>1$ theCo"ele' issued Co"ele' Resolution o.;1$ %e'tion 12 of whi'h provides:

%e'tion 12. Prohiition on 'olu"nist$'o""entators or announ'ers.- During thepleis'ite 'a"paign period$ on the da!

efore and on pleis'ite da!$ no "ass"edia 'olu"nist$ 'o""entator$ announ'eror personalit! shall use his 'olu"n orradio or television ti"e to 'a"paign for oragainst the pleis'ite issues.

>1$ he "a! still e3press his views or'a"paign for or against the a't throughthe Co"ele' spa'e and airti"e.

Held:

+hat is granted ! Art. IM-C of theConstitution to the Co"ele' is the power

to supervise and regulate the use anden@o!"ent of fran'hises$ per"its or othergrants issued for the operation oftransportation or other puli' utilities tothe end that e6ual opportunit!$ ti"e andspa'e$ and the right to repl!$ in'ludingreasonale$ e6ual rates therefor$ for puli'infor"ation 'a"paigns and foru"s a"ong'andidates are insured. The evil sought toe prevented ! this provision is thepossiilit! that a fran'hise holder "a!favor or give undue advantage to a

'andidate in ter"s of advertising ti"e andspa'e. This is also the reason wh! a'olu"nist$ 'o""entator or announ'er isre6uired to ta#e a leave of asen'e fro"his wor# during the 'a"paign period if heis a 'andidate.

H)+EFER$ EITHER ARTIC*E IM-C )0THE C)%TITTI) )R %ECTI) 11&$



53/120


;D PAR. )0 RA 9. Corro vs. *ising$ 1 %CRA >

. 0reedo" of e3pression in general

Read:+. RADG DAFID F%. ARR)G)$4a! $ ;$ 2 %CRA 1(2. Adiong vs. Co"ele'$ 4ar'h1$ 122; &&)tt3 o4 5"!/l< /35


54/120


55/120


under an 5unde'lared7 "artial rule$ andthe protest was li#ewise dispersedviolentl! and "an! a"ong the" werearrested and suffered in@uries.

The third group$ l)>

An A't Ensuring The 0ree E3er'ise! The People )f Their Right Pea'eal! ToAsse"le And Petition The /overn"entKAndL 0or )ther PurposesBe it ena3ted +y the Batasang *am+ansain session assem+led>

%ECTI) 1. 5itle. This A't shalle #nown as 5The Puli' Asse"l! A't of12>9.7

%EC. ;. De3laration of poli3y. The 'onstitutional right of the peoplepea'eal! to asse"le and petition thegovern"ent for redress of grievan'es is

essential and vital to the strength andstailit! of the %tate. To this end$ the%tate shall ensure the free e3er'ise ofsu'h right without pre@udi'e to the rightsof others to life$ liert! and e6ualprote'tion of the law.

%EC. . Definition of terms. 0orpurposes of this A't:

& 5Puli' pla'e7 shall in'ludean! highwa!$ oulevard$ avenue$ road$street$ ridge or other thoroughfare$ par#$pla?a s6uare$ and,or an! open spa'e ofpuli' ownership where the people areallowed a''ess.

&' 54a3i"u" toleran'e7"eans the highest degree of restraint that

the "ilitar!$ poli'e and other pea'e#eeping authorities shall oserve during apuli' asse"l! or in the dispersal of thesa"e.

%EC. hereof.. The appli'ation shall e filed withthe offi'e of the "a!or of the 'it! or

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW


56/120


"uni'ipalit! in whose @urisdi'tion theintended a'tivit! is to e held$ at least five&9 wor#ing da!s efore the s'heduledpuli' asse"l!.. In all 'ases$ an! de'ision "a! eappealed to the %upre"e Court.

CPR$ on the other hand$ is a poli'!set forth in a press release ! 4ala'aZangdated %epte"er ;1$ ;9$ shown inAnne3 5A7 to the Petition in /.R. o.12>$ thus:4ala'aZang )ffi'ial4anila$ Philippines E+%

Release o. ;

%epte"er ;1$ ;9

STATEMENT OF EECUTIVESECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA

:n Unla


57/120


The President=s 'all for unit! andre'on'iliation stands$ ased on the rule oflaw.

Petitioners :/y/3'"t /l.$ 'ontendthat atas Pa"ansa o. >> is 'learl! a

violation of the Constitution and theInternational Covenant on Civil andPoliti'al Rights and other hu"an rightstreaties of whi'h the Philippines is asignator!.

The! argue that .P. o. >>re6uires a per"it efore one 'an stage apuli' asse"l! regardless of thepresen'e or asen'e of a 'lear andpresent danger. It also 'urtails the 'hoi'eof venue and is thus repugnant to thefreedo" of e3pression 'lause as the ti"e

and pla'e of a puli' asse"l! for" partof the "essage for whi'h the e3pression issought. 0urther"ore$ it is not 'ontent-neutral as it does not appl! to "assa'tions in support of the govern"ent. Thewords 5lawful 'ause$7 5opinion$75protesting or influen'ing7 suggest thee3position of so"e 'ause not espoused !the govern"ent. Also$ the phrase5"a3i"u" toleran'e7 shows that the lawapplies to asse"lies against thegovern"ent e'ause the! are eing

tolerated. As a 'ontent-ased legislation$it 'annot pass the stri't s'rutin! test.

F)$t1"$o$"' t1" l/# 5"l"/t"of the ill of Rights$ %e'tion ;&9 of Arti'leIM$ and %e'tion of Arti'le MIII.8urispruden'e aounds with hallowed

pronoun'e"ents defending and pro"otingthe people=s e3er'ise of these rights. Asearl! as the onset of this 'entur!$ thisCourt in U.S. vs. Apurado$ alread! upheldthe right to asse"l! and petition andeven went as far as to a'#nowledge:5It is rather to e e3pe'ted that "ore orless disorder will "ar# the puli'asse"l! of the people to protest againstgrievan'es whether real or i"aginar!$e'ause on su'h o''asions feeling isalwa!s wrought to a high pit'h of

e3'ite"ent$ and the greater$ the grievan'eand the "ore intense the feeling$ the lessperfe't$ as a rule will e the dis'iplinar!'ontrol of the leaders over theirirresponsile followers. ut if theprose'ution e per"itted to sei?e uponever! instan'e of su'h disorderl! 'ondu't! individual "e"ers of a 'rowd as ane3'use to 'hara'teri?e the asse"l! as aseditious and tu"ultuous rising againstthe authorities$ then the right to asse"leand to petition for redress of grievan'es

would e3pose all those who too# parttherein to the severest and "ostun"erited punish"ent$ if the purposeswhi'h the! sought to attain did nothappen to e pleasing to the prose'utingauthorities. If instan'es of disorderl!'ondu't o''ur on su'h o''asions$ theguilt! individuals should e sought outand punished therefor$ ut the ut"ost

dis'retion "ust e e3er'ised in drawingthe line etween disorderl! and seditious'ondu't and etween an essentiall!pea'eale asse"l! and a tu"ultuousuprising.7

Again$ in *rimi3ias v. Gugoso$ the Courtli#ewise sustained the pri"a'! of freedo"of spee'h and to asse"l! and petitionover 'o"fort and 'onvenien'e in the useof streets and par#s.

e3t$ however$ it "ust e re"e"eredthat the right$ while sa'rosan't$ is notasolute. In *rimi3ias$ this Court said:The right to freedo" of spee'h$ and topea'efull! asse"le and petition thegovern"ent for redress of grievan'es$ are

funda"ental personal rights of the peoplere'ogni?ed and guaranteed ! the'onstitutions of de"o'rati' 'ountries. utit is a settled prin'iple growing out of thenature of well-ordered 'ivil so'ieties thatthe e3er'ise of those rights is not asolutefor it "a! e so regulated that it shall note in@urious to the e6ual en@o!"ent ofothers having e6ual rights$ nor in@urious tothe rights of the 'o""unit! or so'iet!.The power to regulate the e3er'ise of su'hand other 'onstitutional rights is ter"ed

the sovereign 5poli'e power$7 whi'h is thepower to pres'rie regulations$ topro"ote the health$ "orals$ pea'e$edu'ation$ good order or safet!$ andgeneral welfare of the people. Thissovereign poli'e power is e3er'ised ! thegovern"ent through its legislative ran'h! the ena't"ent of laws regulating thoseand other 'onstitutional and 'ivil rights$and it "a! e delegated to politi'alsudivisions$ su'h as towns$ "uni'ipalitiesand 'ities ! authori?ing their legislativeodies 'alled "uni'ipal and 'it! 'oun'ils

ena't ordinan'es for purpose

eyes v. Bagatsing further e3pounded onthe right and its li"its$ as follows:

1. It is thus 'lear that the Court is'alled upon to prote't the e3er'ise of the'ognate rights to free spee'h and pea'efulasse"l!$ arising fro" the denial of aper"it. The Constitution is 6uite e3pli'it:5o law shall e passed aridging thefreedo" of spee'h$ or of the press$ or the

right of the people pea'eal! to asse"leand petition the /overn"ent for redressof grievan'es.7 0ree spee'h$ li#e freepress$ "a! e identified with the liert! todis'uss puli'l! and truthfull! an! "atterof puli' 'on'ern without 'ensorship orpunish"ent. There is to e then noprevious restraint on the 'o""uni'ationof views or suse6uent liailit! whether in



59/120


liel suits$ prose'ution for sedition$ ora'tion for da"ages$ or 'onte"ptpro'eedings unless there e a 5'lear andpresent danger of a sustantive evil thatKthe %tateL has a right to prevent.70reedo" of asse"l! 'onnotes the right

of the people to "eet pea'eal! for'onsultation and dis'ussion of "atters ofpuli' 'on'ern. It is entitled to ea''orded the ut"ost deferen'e andrespe't. It is not to e li"ited$ "u'h lessdenied$ e3'ept on a showing$ as is the'ase with freedo" of e3pression$ of a'lear and present danger of a sustantiveevil that the state has a right to prevent.Even prior to the 129 Constitution$8usti'e 4al'ol" had o''asion to stressthat it is a ne'essar! 'onse6uen'e of ourrepuli'an institutions and 'o"ple"ents

the right of free spee'h. To paraphrasethe opinion of 8usti'e Rutledge$ spea#ingfor the "a@orit! of the A"eri'an %upre"eCourt in Tho"as v. Collins$ it was not !a''ident or 'oin'iden'e that the rights tofreedo" of spee'h and of the press were'oupled in a single guarantee with theright of the people pea'eal! to asse"leand to petition the govern"ent for redressof grievan'es. All these rights$ while notidenti'al$ are inseparale. In ever! 'ase$therefore$ where there is a li"itation

pla'ed on the e3er'ise of this right$ the@udi'iar! is 'alled upon to e3a"ine theeffe'ts of the 'hallenged govern"entala'tuation. The sole @ustifi'ation for ali"itation on the e3er'ise of this right$ sofunda"ental to the "aintenan'e ofde"o'rati' institutions$ is the danger$ of a'hara'ter oth grave and i""inent$ of aserious evil to puli' safet!$ puli' "orals$puli' health$ or an! other legiti"atepuli' interest.

;. owhere is the rationale

that underlies the freedo" of e3pressionand pea'eale asse"l! etter e3pressedthan in this e3'erpt fro" an opinion of8usti'e 0ran#furter: 5It "ust never eforgotten$ however$ that the ill of Rightswas the 'hild of the Enlighten"ent. a'#of the guarant! of free spee'h la! faith inthe power of an appeal to reason ! allthe pea'eful "eans for gaining a''ess tothe "ind. It was in order to avert for'eand e3plosions due to restri'tions uponrational "odes of 'o""uni'ation that the

guarant! of free spee'h was given agenerous s'ope. ut utteran'e in a'onte3t of violen'e 'an lose itssignifi'an'e as an appeal to reason ande'o"e part of an instru"ent of for'e.%u'h utteran'e was not "eant to esheltered ! the Constitution.7 +hat wasrightfull! stressed is the aandon"ent ofreason$ the utteran'e$ whether veral or

printed$ eing in a 'onte3t of violen'e. It"ust alwa!s e re"e"ered that thisright li#ewise provides for a safet! valve$allowing parties the opportunit! to givevent to their views$ even if 'ontrar! to theprevailing 'li"ate of opinion. 0or if the

pea'eful "eans of 'o""uni'ation 'annote availed of$ resort to non-pea'eful"eans "a! e the onl! alternative. or isthis the sole reason for the e3pression ofdissent. It "eans "ore than @ust the rightto e heard of the person who feelsaggrieved or who is dissatisfied withthings as the! are. Its value "a! lie inthe fa't that there "a! e so"ethingworth hearing fro" the dissenter. That isto ensure a true fer"ent of ideas. Thereare$ of 'ourse$ well-defined li"its. +hatis guaranteed is pea'eale asse"l!. )ne

"a! not advo'ate disorder in the na"e ofprotest$ "u'h less prea'h reellion underthe 'loa# of dissent. The Constitutionfrowns on disorder or tu"ult attending arall! or asse"l!. Resort to for'e is ruledout and outrea#s of violen'e to eavoided. The ut"ost 'al" though is notre6uired. As pointed out in an earl!Philippine 'ase$ penned in 12 to epre'ise$ nited %tates v. Apurado: 5It israther to e e3pe'ted that "ore or lessdisorder will "ar# the puli' asse"l! of

the people to protest against grievan'eswhether real or i"aginar!$ e'ause onsu'h o''asions feeling is alwa!s wroughtto a high pit'h of e3'ite"ent$ and thegreater the grievan'e and the "oreintense the feeling$ the less perfe't$ as arule$ will e the dis'iplinar! 'ontrol of theleaders over their irresponsile followers.7I

political law review 2 20081

Documents