Section 1.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

REQUISITES of VALID CLASSIFICATION:

It must rest on Substantial distinctions
It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Standards of Judicial Review

a) Rational Basis Test: described as adopting a ‘deferential’ attitude towards
legislative classifications. It applies to legislative classifications in general, such as
those pertaining to economic or social legislation.

b) Strict Scrutiny Test: A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes

with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of
a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon government
to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. This is used on
issues of speech, gender, and race.

c) Intermediate Scrutiny Test: government must show that the challenged

classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least
substantially related to serving that interest.

Section 2. The right to of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

*Administrative Arrest (Exceptions to the rule that only a judge may issue a
warrant):
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a
final finding of a violation. It is issued after a proceeding has taken place.

Incidental to a Lawful Arrest

Sec. 12 Rule 16, Rules of Court
Two Requisites:
1. Item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate
control.
 2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.

Plain View
Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
4. Noticed without further search.

Moving Vehicle
There must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
occupant committed a criminal activity.

Consent/Waiver
Requisites:
1.It must appear that the right exists.
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of the right.
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

Stop and Frisk Situation

Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and that the person with
whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves
to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of
the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be
used to assault him.”
Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a hunch is not enough.
Rather, a “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him.”

Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests

Requisites to be valid:
1. It must be random, and
2. It must be suspicionless.

The constitutional validity of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug

testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of their right to privacy
when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting their
persons to the parental authority of school authorities.
In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the
mandatory, random and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness
of the drug test policy and requirement.
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment as
they are singled out and impleaded against their will. The operative concepts in the
mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and “suspicionless.”

The mandatory drug test requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a

certificate of candidacy of electoral candidates not established under the
Constitution, e.g. local government positions, is valid.

Warrantless Arrests
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or attempting to commit an offense; (Flagrante Delicto)
b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another

Hot Pursuit
Two Requisites:
1. An offense had just been committed.
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested
committed it.
*There must be immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time
of the arrest.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Cybercrime Law- R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012): The State
recognizes the vital role of information and communications industries such as
content production, telecommunications, broadcasting electronic commerce, and
data processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The State
also recognizes the importance of providing an environment conducive to the
development, acceleration, and rational application and exploitation of information
and communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and intelligible access to
exchange and/or delivery of information; and the need to protect and safeguard the
integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and
databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data
stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making
punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall
adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by
facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and
international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable
international cooperation.

Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects.

The US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in electronically recording a
conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his
right to privacy and constituted a “search and seizure”. Because the petitioner had
a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal
telephone call, the protection of the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the existence of
privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a
person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that
the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
(objective).

Factors to Determine Violation of the Right to Privacy

In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine
whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.

RA No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law

Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590: “Private communication” in Section 1 of RA 4200 is
deemed to include “private conversations.”
Navarro v. CA, GR 121087, August 26, 1999: The Anti-Wiretapping Law prohibits the
overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Thus, a tape
recording of an altercation or verbal exchange between a policeman and a radio
reporter at a police station is admissible in evidence.

Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

Writ of Habeas Data: the remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of

expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Content-based Regulation: Restraint is aimed at the message or idea of the

expression. Apply the Strict Scrutiny Test and the challenged act must overcome
the clear and present danger rule.

Content-neutral Regulation: Restraint is aimed to regulate the time, place or manner

of the expression in public place without any restraint on the content of the
expression. Apply the Intermediate Approach Test wherein a regulation is justified if
it is : within the constitutional power of government, furthers an important or
substantial government interest, government interest is unrelated to the
suppression of free expression, and the incident restriction on the alleged freedom
of speech and expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest. Here, it only requires substantial government interest for validity.

Facial Challenge Concept: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that only
persons who are directly affected by a statute have legal standing to assail the
same. This is only applicable to statutes involving free speech, impeached on the
grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the litigants are permitted to challenge
a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because
of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause
others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
expression.

Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014: While this Court has withheld the
application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded its scope
to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious
freedom, and other fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this modification
is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded
jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but
also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Overbreadth Doctrine: A ground to declare a statute void when “it offends the
constitutional principle that a government purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.”

Tests for Valid Government Interference to Freedom of Expression

1. Clear and Present Danger Test
2. Dangerous Tendency Test
3. Balancing of Interest Test

State Regulation of Different Types of Mass Media

1. Broadcast and Radio Media: It is subject to dual regulation: First, procure a
legislative franchise. Second, register and be subject to regulations set by the
NTC.
2. Print Media
*The freedom of television and radio broadcasting is lesser in scope that the
freedom accorded to newspapers and print media.

Heckler’s Veto: This involves situations in which the government attempts to ban
protected speech because it might provoke a violent response.

1. Prior Restraint: Refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other

forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.

Valid Prior Restraint:

1. Movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to
numerous people.
2. Pornography
3. False or misleading commercial statement
4. Advocacy of imminent lawless action
5. Danger to national security (Chavez v. Gonzales)

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil
or political rights.

Free Exercise of Religion Tests

a) Clear and Present Danger Test: When words are used in such circumstance and
of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the
substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent.

b) Compelling State Interest Test: When a law of general application infringes

religious exercise, albeit incidentally, the state interest sought to be promoted must
be so paramount and compelling as to override the free exercise claim. Three-step
test:
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of
religion?
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means
possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to
achieve the legitimate goal of the state?

c) Conscientious Objector Test: Persons who are conscientiously opposed to

participation in war in any form by reason of religious training and belief may be
exempted from combat training and service in the armed forces. Religious training
and belief means an individual’s belief in relation to a Supreme Being involving
duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include
essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal code.

Ecclesiastical Matters -

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Human Security Act, Section 26: In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and
the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is
entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the
prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or
city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national
security and public safety. Travel outside said municipality or city, without the
authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions
of his bail, which shall then be forfeited under the Rules of Court.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Limitation on the Right

No right to information in the following:
1. National security matters and intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions
3. Criminal matters
4. Other confidential information which includes diplomatic correspondence, closed
door Cabinet meetings and executive sessions of either Houses of Congress, and
the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9. Private Property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Indigent Party: One who is authorized by the court to prosecute his action or
defense as an indigent upon an ex parte application and hearing showing that he
has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.

Legal Provisions on Free Access

1. RA 6035: stenographers are required to give free transcript of stenographic notes
to indigent and low-income litigants.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
3. Constitution, Article 3, Section 12: the court appoints a counsel de officio for an
accused who cannot afford to engage the service of a counsel de parte.
4. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 4: No docket or other lawful fees shall be
required for the filing of the petition.
5. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, Section 4: No docket and other lawful fees are
required from indigent petitioner.