Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
174.
175.
Held:
In negotiating tax treaties, the
underlying rationale for reducing the tax
rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tax in the expectation that the
tax given up for this particular investment is
not taxed by the other country.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., 309 SCRA
87, 103, June 25, 1999)
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The Due Process Clause
Discuss the Due Process Clause.
Distinguish substantive due process
from procedural due process.
176.
Copy of Twenty19
116
177.
Copy of Twenty19
117
178.
Copy of Twenty19
118
Copy of Twenty19
119
180.
Copy of Twenty19
120
181.
Is
the
Plunder
Law
unconstitutional for being vague?
Copy of Twenty19
121
Copy of Twenty19
122
Copy of Twenty19
123
Copy of Twenty19
124
182.
Copy of Twenty19
125
Held:
Contrary to his contention, his
detention prior to the conclusion of the
extradition proceedings does not amount to
a violation of his right to due process. We
iterate the familiar doctrine that the
essence of due process is the opportunity
to be heard but, at the same time, point out
that the doctrine does not always call for a
prior opportunity to be heard. Where the
circumstances such as those present in
an extradition case call for it, a
subsequent opportunity to be heard is
enough. In the present case, respondent
will be given full opportunity to be heard
subsequently, when the extradition court
hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence,
there is no violation of his right to due
process and fundamental fairness.
Copy of Twenty19
126
184.
Copy of Twenty19
127
185.
Copy of Twenty19
128
186.
188.
187.
Copy of Twenty19
129
Copy of Twenty19
130
189.
accused-appellant as a prisoner
from the same class as all persons
validly confined under law?
Held: In the ultimate analysis, the issue
before us boils down to a question of
constitutional equal protection.
Xxx
The performance of legitimate and even
essential duties by public officers has never
been an excuse to free a person validly in
prison.
The duties imposed by the
mandate of the people are multifarious.
The accused-appellant asserts that the
duty to legislate ranks highest in the
hierarchy of government. The accusedappellant is only one of 250 members of
the House of Representatives, not to
mention the 24 members of the Senate,
charged with the duties of legislation.
Congress continues to function well in the
physical absence of one or a few of its
members. Depending on the exigency of
Government that has to be addressed, the
President or the Supreme Court can also
be deemed the highest for that particular
duty.
The importance of a function
depends on the need for its exercise. The
duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most
compelling under the law of nature. A
doctor with unique skills has the duty to
save the lives of those with a particular
affliction. An elective governor has to serve
provincial constituents. A police officer
must maintain peace and order. Never had
the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner
into a different classification from those
others who are validly restrained by law.
A strict scrutiny of classifications is
essential lest wittingly or otherwise,
insidious discriminations are made in favor
of or against groups or types of individuals.
The Court cannot validate badges of
inequality. The necessities imposed by
public welfare may justify exercise of
government authority to regulate even if
Copy of Twenty19
131
190.
Copy of Twenty19
132
191.
Discuss
the
constitutional
requirement that a judge, in issuing
a warrant of arrest, must determine
probable
cause
personally.
Distinguish
determination
of
probable cause by the prosecutor
and determination of probable cause
by the judge.
In Soliven
pronounced:
v.
Makasiar,
this
Court
Copy of Twenty19
133
Copy of Twenty19
134
192.
Held:
This Court has held that the
applicant should particularly describe the
place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized, wherever and
whenever it is feasible. In the present
case, it must be noted that the application
for a search warrant was accompanied by
a sketch of the compound at 516 San Jose
de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City. The
sketch indicated the 2-storey residential
house of private respondent with a large
"X" enclosed in a square. Within the same
compound are residences of other people,
workshops,
offices,
factories
and
warehouse. With this sketch as the guide,
it could have been very easy to describe
the residential house of private respondent
with sufficient particularity so as to
segregate it from the other buildings or
structures inside the same compound. But
the search warrant merely indicated the
address of the compound which is 516 San
Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City.
This description of the place to be
searched is too general and does not
pinpoint the specific house of private
respondent. Thus, the inadequacy of the
description of the residence of private
ELS: Political Law
193.
Copy of Twenty19
135
Is a respondent in an Extradition
Proceeding entitled to notice and
hearing before the issuance of a
warrant of arrest?
194.
Xxx
ELS: Political Law
Copy of Twenty19
136
195.
196.
Copy of Twenty19
137
Copy of Twenty19
138
197.
is
stop-and-frisk
Copy of Twenty19
139
198.
at
checkpoints
Copy of Twenty19
140
199.
Held:
Accused-appellants assail the
manner by which the checkpoint in
question was conducted. They contend
that the checkpoint manned by elements of
the Makati Police should have been
announced. They also complain of its
having been conducted in an arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.
We take judicial notice of the
existence of the COMELEC resolution
imposing a gun ban during the election
period issued pursuant to Section 52(c) in
relation to Section 26(q) of the Omnibus
Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881).
The national and local elections in 1995
were held on 8 May, the second Monday of
the month. The incident, which happened
on 5 April 1995, was well within the election
period.
Xxx
The checkpoint herein conducted
was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced
by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would
be hard put to implement the ban if its
deputized agents were limited to a visual
search of pedestrians. It would also defeat
the purpose for which such ban was
instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun
during said period would know that they
only need a car to be able to easily
perpetrate their malicious designs.
The facts adduced do not constitute
a ground for a violation of the constitutional
rights of the accused against illegal search
and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they
were merely stopping cars they deemed
ELS: Political Law
200.
Copy of Twenty19
141
201.
202.
Ans.:
No.
Instead, they should be
promptly disposed of in the manner
provided by law in order to insure that the
same do not fall into the wrong hands who
might use the drugs underground. As
clarified in People v. Judge Estrella T.
Estrada (G.R No. 124461, June 26, 2000,
Spcl. 2nd Div. [Ynares-Santiago]):
ELS: Political Law
Copy of Twenty19
142
203.
204.
As a consequence of appellants
valid warrantless arrest, he may be lawfully
searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search
warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section
12. This is a valid search incidental to a
lawful arrest. The subsequent discovery in
his car of drug paraphernalia and the
The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no
crystalline substance, which, was later
review powers over such proceedings is
identified as shabu, though in a distant
anchored upon the policy of placing no
place from where the illegal possession of
unnecessary
hindrance
on
the
firearm was committed, cannot be said to
governments drive, not only to prevent
have been made during an illegal search.
smuggling and other frauds upon Customs,
As such, the seized items do not fall within
but more importantly, to render effective
the exclusionary clause x x x. Hence, not
and efficient the collection of import and
being fruits of the poisonous tree x x x the
143
ELS: Political Law
Copy of Twenty19
205.
Copy of Twenty19
145
206.
Ans.:
R.A. 4200 is a special law
prohibiting and penalizing wire-tapping.
Section 1 thereof provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be
he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence,
to knowingly possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date of
this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any other
person: Provided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
Copy of Twenty19
146
207.
208.
Copy of Twenty19
147
209.
210.
211.
Copy of Twenty19
148
Copy of Twenty19
149
212.
Copy of Twenty19
150
Distinguish
content-based
restrictions on free speech from
content-neutral restrictions, and
give example of each.
213.
Held:
Content-based restrictions are
imposed because of the content of the
speech and are, therefore, subject to the
clear-and-present danger test.
For
example, a rule such as that involved in
Sanidad
v.
Comelec,
prohibiting
columnists,
commentators,
and
announcers from campaigning either for or
against an issue in a plebiscite must have
compelling reason to support it, or it will not
pass muster under strict scrutiny. These
restrictions are censorial and therefore they
bear a heavy presumption of constitutional
invalidity. In addition, they will be tested for
possible overbreadth and vagueness.
Content-neutral restrictions, on the other
hand, like Sec. 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646,
which prohibits the sale or donation of print
space and air time to political candidates
during the campaign period, are not
concerned with the content of the speech.
These regulations need only a substantial
governmental interest to support them. A
deferential standard of review will suffice to
test their validity. The clear-and-present
danger rule is inappropriate as a test for
determining the constitutional validity of
laws, like Sec. 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646,
which are not concerned with the content of
political ads but only with their incidents.
To apply the clear-and-present danger test
to such regulatory measures would be like
using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when
a regular hammer is all that is needed.
The test for this difference in the level of
justification for the restriction of speech is
that content-based restrictions distort public
debate, have improper motivation, and are
usually imposed because of fear of how
people will react to a particular speech. No
such reasons underlie content-neutral
regulations, like regulation of time, place
and manner of holding public assemblies
Copy of Twenty19
151
215.
214.
Held:
Such arguments are purely
speculative and clearly untenable. First, by
the very nature of a survey, the
interviewees or participants are selected at
random, so that the results will as much as
possible be representative or reflective of
the general sentiment or view of the
community or group polled. Second, the
survey result is not meant to replace or be
at par with the official Comelec count. It
consists merely of the opinion of the polling
group as to who the electorate in general
has probably voted for, based on the
limited data gathered from polled
individuals. Finally, not at stake are the
credibility and the integrity of the elections,
which are exercises that are separate and
independent from the exit polls.
The
holding and the reporting of the results of
exit polls cannot undermine those of the
elections, since the former is only part of
the latter. If at all, the outcome of one can
only be indicative of the other.
The COMELECs concern with the possible
noncommunicative effect of exit polls
disorder and confusion in the voting
centers does not justify a total ban on
them. Undoubtedly, the assailed Comelec
Resolution is too broad, since its
application is without qualification as to
whether the polling is disruptive or not.
There is no showing, however, that exit
polls or the means to interview voters
cause chaos in voting centers. Neither has
any evidence been presented proving that
Copy of Twenty19
152
and
surveys
affecting
local
candidates shall not be published
seven (7) days before an election.
The Social Weather Stations, Inc.
(SWS), a private non-stock, nonprofit social research institution
conducting surveys in various fields;
and
Kamahalan
Publishing
Corporation, publisher of the Manila
Standard, a newspaper of general
circulation,
which
features
newsworthy items of information
including
election
surveys,
challenged the constitutionality of
aforesaid provision as it constitutes
a prior restraint on the exercise of
freedom of speech without any clear
and present danger to justify such
restraint. Should the challenge be
sustained?
216.
Copy of Twenty19
153
Copy of Twenty19
154
Copy of Twenty19
155
Copy of Twenty19
156
218.
220.
219.
Held:
The guarantees of freedom of
speech and press prohibit a public official
or public figure from recovering damages
for a defamatory falsehood relating to his
official conduct unless he proves that the
statement was made with actual malice,
i.e., with knowledge that it was false or with
ELS: Political Law
Copy of Twenty19
157
221.
222.
223.
Held:
Indisputably, petitioner Borjals
questioned writings are not within the
exceptions of Art. 354 of The Revised
Penal Code for x x x they are neither
private communications nor fair and true
report without any comments or remarks.
However, this does not necessarily mean
that they are not privileged. To be sure, the
enumeration under Art. 354 is not an
exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged
communications since fair commentaries
on matters of public interest are likewise
privileged. (Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1,
Jan. 14, 1999, 2nd Div. [Bellosillo])
Copy of Twenty19
158
224.
Held:
The
rule
on
privileged
communications had its genesis not in the
nations penal code but in the Bill of Rights
of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of
speech and of the press. As early as 1918,
in United States v. Canete (38 Phil. 253,
265 [1918]), this Court ruled that
publications which are privileged for
reasons of public policy are protected by
the constitutional guaranty of freedom of
speech. This constitutional right cannot be
abolished by the mere failure of the
legislature to give it express recognition in
the statute punishing libel. (Borjal v. CA,
301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999, 2nd Div.
[Bellosillo])
The Office of the Mayor of Las
Pinas refused to issue permit to
petitioners to hold rally a rally in
front of the Justice Hall of Las Pinas
on the ground that it was prohibited
under Supreme Court En Banc
Resolution dated July 7,1998 in A.M.
No.
98-7-02-SC,
entitled,
"Re:
Guidelines on the Conduct of
Demonstrations, Pickets, Rallies and
Other Similar Gatherings in the
Vicinity of the Supreme Court and All
Other Courts."
Petitioners thus
initiated the instant proceedings.
They submit that the Supreme Court
gravely abused its discretion and/or
acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction in promulgating those
guidelines.
225.
Copy of Twenty19
159
226.
Copy of Twenty19
160
227.
Copy of Twenty19
161
typewriter or
courtroom.
printing
press
into
the
228.
Copy of Twenty19
162
Copy of Twenty19
163
Freedom of Religion
Discuss the two aspects of
freedom of religion.
229.
Copy of Twenty19
164
230.
Xxx
Petitioners stress x x x that while they do
not take part in the compulsory flag
ceremony, they do not engage in external
acts or behavior that would offend their
countrymen who believe in expressing their
love of country through the observance of
the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at
attention during the flag ceremony to show
their respect for the rights of those who
choose to participate in the solemn
proceedings. Since they do not engage in
disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for
their expulsion.
The sole justification for a prior restraint or
limitation on the exercise of religious
freedom (according to the late Chief
Justice Claudio Teehankee in his
dissenting opinion in German v. Barangan,
135 SCRA 514, 517) is the existence of a
grave and present danger of a character
both grave and imminent, of a serious evil
to public safety, public morals, public health
or any other legitimate public interest, that
the State has a right (and duty) to prevent.
Absent such a threat to public safety, the
expulsion of the petitioners from the
schools is not justified.
The situation that the
predicted in Gerona that:
Court
directly
Copy of Twenty19
165
231.
Copy of Twenty19
166
232.
233.
Copy of Twenty19
167
234.
235.
Held:
Where what is involved is the
relationship of the church as an employer
and the minister as an employee and has
no relation whatsoever with the practice of
faith, worship or doctrines of the church,
i.e., the minister was not excommunicated
or expelled from the membership of the
congregation but was terminated from
employment, it is a purely secular affair.
Consequently, the suit may not be
dismissed invoking the doctrine of
separation of church and the state.
(Pastor Dionisio V. Austria v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 124382, Aug. 16, 1999, 1 st Div.
[Kapunan])
The Right of the People to Information
on Matters of Public Concern
Copy of Twenty19
168
236.
Copy of Twenty19
169
237.
Copy of Twenty19
170
239.
Copy of Twenty19
171
Held:
Petitioners, who are public
schoolteachers and thus government
employees, do not seek to establish that
they have a right to strike. Rather, they
tenaciously insist that their absences
during certain dates in September 1990
were a valid exercise of their constitutional
right to engage in peaceful assembly to
petition the government for a redress of
grievances. They claim that their gathering
was not a strike, therefore, their
participation therein did not constitute any
offense. MPSTA v. Laguio and ACT v.
Carino, in which this Court declared that
these mass actions were to all intents and
purposes a strike; they constituted a
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of,
or absence from, work which it was the
teachers duty to perform, undertaken for
essentially economic reasons, should not
principally resolve the present case, as the
underlying facts are allegedly not identical.
240.
Copy of Twenty19
172
241.
Copy of Twenty19
173
Copy of Twenty19
174
242.
Held:
Lastly, considering the heavy
penalty of death and in order to ensure that
the
evidence against an accused were
obtained through lawful means, the Court,
as guardian of the rights of the people lays
down the procedure, guidelines and duties
which the arresting, detaining, inviting, or
investigating officer or his companions
must do and observe at the time of making
an arrest and again at and during the time
of the custodial interrogation in accordance
with the Constitution, jurisprudence and
Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining
Certain Rights of Person Arrested,
Detained or Under Custodial Investigation
as well as the Duties of the Arresting,
Detaining, and Investigating Officers and
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof).
It is high-time to educate our law-
Copy of Twenty19
175
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
It is a valid
50
51
52
53
54
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The arrests are unlawful. What is prohibited and
penalized under Sec. 13 (a) and 14 (a) of B.P.
Big 880 is "the holding of any public assembly
as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer
without having first secured that written permit
where a permit is required from the office
concerned x x x Provided, however, that no
person can be punished or held criminally liable
for participating in or attending an otherwise
peaceful assembly."
Thus, only the leader or organizer of the rally
without a permit may be arrested without a
warrant while the members may not be
arrested, as they can not be punished or held
criminally liable for attending the rally. However,
under Section 12 thereof, when the public
assembly is held without a permit where a
permit is required, the said public assembly
may be peacefully dispersed.
Right to Assembly; Permit Requirements
(1992)
No. 4: Olympia Academy, a private university,
issued a student regulation for maintaining
order in the school campus and to ensure that
academic activities shall be conducted
effectively.
Henceforth,
every
student
organization
intending to hold any symposium, convocation,
rally or any assembly within school property
and involving at least 20 people must file, for
the prior approval of the Dean of Students, an
Application setting forth the time, place,
expected size of the group, and the subjectmatter and purpose of the assembly.
3.
4.
55
56
61
to
save
the
proposed
law
from
unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due
process, it should provide for an immediate
hearing upon suspension of the driver's license.
The proposed law violates the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It will
authorize police authorities to stop any driver
and ask him to take the breathalyzer test even
in the absence of a probable cause.
Searches and Seizures; Immediate Control
(1987)
No. III: "X" a Constabulary Officer, was arrested
pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City
for murder. He was brought to Manila where a
warrantless search was conducted in his official
quarters at Camp Crame, The search team
found and seized the murder weapon in a
drawer of "X". Can "X" claim that the search
and seizure were illegal and move for exclusion
from evidence of the weapon seized? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, "X" can do so. The warrantless search
cannot be justified as an incident of a valid
arrest, because considerable time had elapsed
after his arrest in Baguio before the search of
his quarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City was
made, and because the distance between the
place of arrest and the place of search negates
any claim that the place searched is within his
"immediate control" so as to justify the
apprehension that he might destroy or conceal
evidence of crime before a warrant can be
obtained. (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752
(1969) ) in Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 147 SCRA
509 (1987), the Supreme Court reconsidered its
previous decision holding that a warrantless
search, made after 30 minutes from the time of
arrest, and, in a place several blocks away from
the place of arrest, was valid. It held that a
warrantless search is limited to the search of
the person of the arrestee at the time and
incident to his arrest and for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as
proof of the offense. A contrary rule would
justify the police in procuring a warrant of arrest
and, by virtue thereof, not only arrest the
person but also search his dwelling. A warrant
requires that all facts as to the condition of the
property and its surroundings and its
improvements and capabilities must be
considered, and this can only be done in a
judicial proceeding.
Searches and Seizures; Incidental to Valid
Search (1990)
No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a
lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of
62
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In accordance with the rulings in Uy Keytin v,
Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 and People v. Sy Juco,
64 Phil. 667, the unlicensed firearms found in
the house at 12 Shaw Boulevard may not be
lawfully seized, since they were not included in
the description of the articles to be seized by
virtue of the search warrant. The search
warrant described the articles to be seized as
firearms in the house of X located at 10 Shaw
Boulevard.
Searches and Seizures; Place of Search
(2001)
No XI - Armed with a search and seizure
warrant, a team of policemen led by Inspector
Trias entered a compound and searched the
house described therein as No. 17 Speaker
Perez St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City,
owned by Mr. Ernani Pelets, for a reported
cache of firearms and ammunition. However,
upon thorough search of the house, the police
found nothing.
Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen
proceeded to a smaller house inside the same
compound with address at No. 17-A Speaker
Perez St., entered it, and conducted a search
therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who
happened to be the same owner of the first
house. There, the police found the unlicensed
firearms and ammunition they were looking for.
As a result. Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally
charged in court with Illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition as penalized under
P.D. 1866, as amended by RA. 8294. At the
trial, he vehemently objected to the
presentation of the evidence against him for
being inadmissible. Is Mr. Emani Pelet's
contention valid or not? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held
in People vs. Court of Appeals, 291SCRA 400
(1993), if the place searched is different from
that stated in the search warrant, the evidence
seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot
modify the place to be searched as set out in
the search warrant.
Searches and Seizures; search made by a
private citizen (1993)
No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel.
After he checked out the following day, the
chambermaid found an attache case which she
surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it
over to the manager who, to determine the
name and address of the owner, opened the
attache case and saw packages which had a
63
64
b)
A warrantless search may be effected in
the following cases:
a) Searches incidental to a lawful arrest:
b) Searches of moving vehicles;
c) Searches of prohibited articles in plain view:
d) Enforcement of customs law;
e) Consented searches;
f) Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285
SCRA 703 [1998]);
g) Routine searches at borders and ports of
entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S.
606 [1977]); and
h) Searches of businesses in the exercise of
visitorial powers to enforce police
regulations (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S.
691 (1987]).
Searches and Seizures; Visual Search (1992)
No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints
were set up to enforce the election period ban
on firearms.
During one such routine search one night, while
looking through an open window with a
flashlight, the police saw firearms at the
backseat of a car partially covered by papers
and clothes.
Antonio, owner and driver of the car in question,
was charged for violation of the firearms
ban.
Are the firearms admissible in
evidence against him? Explain.
If, upon further inspection by the police,
prohibited drugs were found inside the
various compartments of Antonio's car,
can the drugs be used in evidence
against Antonio if he is prosecuted for
possession of prohibited drugs? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)
Yes, the firearms are admissible in
evidence, because they were validly seized. In
Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185
SCRA 665, the Supreme Court held that
checkpoints may be set up to maintain peace
and order for the benefit of the public and
checkpoints are a security measure against
unauthorized firearms. Since the search which
resulted in the discovery of the firearms was
limited to a visual search of the car, it was
reasonable. Because of the ban on firearms,
the possession of the firearms was prohibited.
Since they were found in plain view in the
course of a lawful search, in accordance with
the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil.
770, they are admissible in evidence.
b) No, the drugs cannot be used in evidence
against Antonio if he is prosecuted for
possession of prohibited drugs. The drugs
65
ARTICLE IV
Citizenship